Buy
Books
Click images for more details
Currently discussing
-
Nov 11 - US Design Hub
on
Launched my very own online store. -
Nov 11 - Kenna Morgan
on
The Benefits of Using Tutorbin for Custom Writing Services
Links
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
-
Science blogs
-
Political blogs
-
Other blogs
Subscribe
Bishop Hill
Copyright © 2006-2013, Bishop Hill All rights reserved.
Reader Comments (112)
also, later in that (long) email 0497, Phil Jones provides this whopper to Mann:
"Keith didn't mention in his Science piece but both of us
think that you're on very dodgy ground with this long-term
decline in temperatures on the 1000 year timescale."
Such good "science" to hold back (i.e., SUPPRESS, self-censor) such major doubts about the soundness of the work when writing an article for "Science"....
Poor Mann. His "enemies" are "attacking" his "science" again: In case anyone has missed it:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100121659/climategate-2-0-junk-science-101-with-michael-mann/
Skiphil Dec 6, 2011 at 3:15 AM
Censored....yes. Mann actually had a folder called "censored" that contained data confirming the existence of the medieaval warm period. He unintentionally left it accessible to outsiders on an ftp server and it was found by McIntyre and McKitrick in their investigations of Mann's hockey stick.
"You could have sought some feedback from others" (Mann to Covey)
Physician, heal thyself...
Perhaps worth noting that Mann only finished his PhD in 1998, so by 98-99 he was still very much an inexperienced academic - the response from Phil Jones reads to me like an older scientist trying to tell him to cool down and behave in a bit more of a mature manner.
It is also interesting to me how someone atraight out of their PhD could become such an important player amongst the WG1 authors (i.e. those discussing the scientific basis for AGW) in IPCC TAR. es, his MBH88 and MBH99 papers wre significant to 'The Cause' in the particular section of TAR, but I know for sure I'd have been out of my depth in such a role a year or so after completing my PhD, and I'm sure most honest scientists would feel the same.
I'm not one for conspiracies, but there does seem to be an issue with the IPCC and green NGOs having a power behind the throne.
Ian B - I don't think anyone has ever linked young Mann to "green NGOs"?
Martin A - "censoring" has its own meaning in Statistics.
I guess that episode would have died off quickly had Mike&Phil not been so paranoid about McIntyre.
Its still going very badly for MM in the comments. I especially liked this gem -
Mark Christopher wrote:
What a joke. Mann wouldn't know true science if it bit him on the end of the nose. He is a hack and junk scientist and that Penn State continue to protect him should be expected. After all they tried to cover for Jerry Sandusky for how long? Maybe Mann should should actually read the e-mails before he embarrasses himself anymore. It isn't Big Oil that bothers me, it is Big Climate and Big Government, all of which Mann is party. In the end, whoever released those e-mails did all of humanity a service by exposing frauds like Mann et al.
btw, has anyone else noticed that this piece reads differently from Mann's usual style in the emails.... even allowing for differences of informality in emails etc., this doesn't really sound like the same person... I'll bet that Mann has some PR flack doing this stuff for him now....
Maurizio
I phrased the last sentence badly - I wasn't intending to imply that Mann is particularly beholden to FoE or Greenpeace (at least any more than other scientists working in the general Environmental fields, who all benefit from the NGOs keeping environmental issues high on the agenda). Having said that, the link between MM, RealClimate and Fenton Communications is interesting in a 'friends in high places' type of way.
My point was more that I suspect there is more going on behind the scenes than we are privy to - IPCC WG1 seems to boil down to a handful of scientists (Solomon, Trenberth and a couple of others) who seem to have the final say in what goes into the report even after all the editorial discussions - who put them into these positions and who is keeping them there?
Similarly in the UK, how did Jonathon Porritt go from being head of Friends of the Earth to Blair's Science advisor (a post for which he was no more qualified than I would be)? Also the cases discussed last week of scientists flitting between Government roles, NGOs and CRU or other similar institutions
I found this interesting:
Steven Hayward Responds to Mann
Mann talks of validation of his hockey stick by the NAS. Not surprisingly, the NAS committee, "Advancing the Science of Climate Change is well stocked with NGO's such as Richard Moss, WWF, Carter Roberts, WWF, chaired by Pamela Matson, board of trustees, WWF. NAS Comittee on America's Climate Choices has Fred Krupp from Environmental Defense, Eileen Claussen from the Pew Centre, Jane Lubchenco and John Holdren, amongst others. Krupp and Roberts are funded in part by Jeremy Grantham and are both on the joint management board of the LSE and Imperial Grantham Centres, with a direct input into UK climate policy.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/controlling_the_science.html