Friday
Jun242011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Mann on Muller
Jun 24, 2011 Climate: CRU Climate: Mann FOI Michael Mann has a bash at Richard Muller at the Scientific American blog:
One might hope, however, that a scientist known for big ideas that didn’t stand the test of time might be more circumspect when it comes to his critiques of other scientists. Muller is on record accusing climate scientists at the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit of hiding data—a charge that was rejected in three separate investigations.
I think it would be fairer to say that two of the investigations didn't look at the subject and the one that did failed to report that they had found evidence of hiding data.
Reader Comments (50)
This is amusing:
Isn't Mann a little disingenuous, and was not Muller going back to unadjusted data?
And I thought it was all happy campers because Muller said it was warming and it was us. You just can't please some people.
[Snip]
Why should anyone be concerned anymore with anything that Dr Mann has to say. As one distinguished scientist said "there are some folks whose papers I don't bother to read any more"
So Dr. Mann, after describing yourself and what you should do about critiquing other scientists I have one question for you: "Why did you ignore your own advice to yourself?"
Hiding the decline was easy, he has now moved on to ignoring "hide the decline", hoping to get rid of it.
Hide the decline, and the medieval warm period are here for keeps
Was getting rid of the MWP a case of trying to hide the hump?
Mann also claims:
But instead of pointing/linking to the actual NAS report, he links to his cheerleaders! The following is a comment I posted on the article:
Imagine hearing this quote about some scientist you had never heard of before?
Is that who Richard Muller is to you? A failed scientist?
Knowing that a selective context is very powerful without evidence - do you notice a trend of the underlying mentality that would use that construction.
If I said another scientist often uses innuendo and selective context rather than diligent science am I wrong?
Am I doing it now ;)
Scientist A said this
Pop Quiz.
Question (1)
Who is the objectively placed scientist A that says Scientist B is so hopeless at something ... that it "didn’t stand the test of time"
Please no cheating by actually knowing ;)
The answer doesn't matter make something up - he does ;)
Co2 Insainty
Your comment posted at 10.31 is highly unpleasant and gives this blog a bad name.
Ironically I see from your own blog http://co2insanity.com/my-blog/ that you "will edit or remove posts [you] consider to be offensive and/or in bad taste". Hopefully the Bishop will follow your example and remove your offensive remark.
I think you should apply standards of common decency to other people's blogs. This blog is about discussing science and politics, not making unsavoury connections. I am sure that most contributors will want to join me in distancing themselves from this kind of behaviour.
Also please learn to spell your own name.
@Bish
Agree with disappointed. No fan of the guys at CRU myself, but likening them in anyway to "***** **********" is beyond anything I can adequately express here. Please Remove.
That blog by Mann is remarkable in many ways. It is the usual activist screed; do not argue the issue at hand, but instead smear your (perceived) enemy by making them look error prone (Richard Muller is anything but that), inflate non-independent reports and inquiries into something they never were, then make thinly veiled threats at journalists who dare to speak to and report the views of sceptics.
What Mann misses in all of this, of course, is what science is all about. Muller has done some incredible and successful physics (far beyond anything Mann has achieved in his career). And yes, he has pursued some very interesting ideas, but ideas that were ultimately wrong. Of course, it was not possible to know those ideas were wrong when they were being developed - the evidence did not exist. So Richard Muller was not wrong to investigate them. But what stands out about Richard Muller is when evidence rolled in that his ideas were right or wrong, he didn't attempt to hide this evidence or crow about it. He objectively presented the evidence and the consequences of that evidence.
Which is why Richard Muller can look back on a career as a great scientist, while Mann will be remembered as a fairly unpleasant political activist and incompetent scientist.
It is no surprise to me that SciAm lets this happen - like New Scientist, these are the tabloids of the pop science press. What amazes me is that the academies continue to defend this individual. Are they not capable of opening their eyes and seeing what it is they are endorsing and protecting?
disappointed
Presumably you mean this:
Which was, I think, Muller's statement on Mann's work, or at least some of it.
- Why is this so outrageous?
- Why should a commenter be criticised for quoting a scientist?
Ah. Sorry. With others above on the other 10:31.
Yes, agree with disappointed and GSW; no child molester slurs should be tolerated on BH. We should leave that kind of behaviour to respectable commentators like Monbiot:
http://www.monbiot.com/1999/07/29/meltdown/
@lapogus
Game, set and match, I think.
I too agree that there is need for civility -- Co2 Insainty could have use a less sulphurous analogy.
However, I do agree with his basic point -- it was not an impartial review. It was, indeed, a farce.
One needs to "Fight from the brain, not heart" as the Samurai would say. Thank you Lapogus for pointing out why.
From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate, with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.
What I found interesting was the contrast of style between Mann in ‘polemical mode’ and Mann in “research reporter” mode. (Note different inverted commas to indicate doubt.)
Let me tell a tale. As I hope is clear, I am no scientist, but of recent years I have involved myself in some heavy duty medical research which has involved reading large numbers of peer reviewed papers. So despite appalling credentials, I think I know how a research report should read – clear and so on and easy to isolate what you do not understand and perhaps go and look for it elsewhere.
However, recently, swanning round in climatological waters, I came across one of Mann’s so-called research papers. Now this was a totally different kettle of fish. After flogging through several pages I concluded I did not even know what I did not know. The paper’s points were clearly meant to be received but not understood. Mann has undoubted talent for aggression and bXllshXt: the implication being that my incomprehension conclusively demonstrated my incompetence and I should take what I was told as the last authoratitive word. What a contrast from the medical stuff I had been familiar with!
(The Bishop, as A W Montford in the HSI, also wrote of the vagueness of Mann’s language in MBH98 & 99, I think, but in a manner that I now find understated, and did not refer to its implicit aggression, though there are plentiful references to aggression in e-mails and the like.)
I wonder what papers by Jones, Briffa etc at UEA are like.
Well now! In polemical mode, Mann makes himself crystal clear – no vague allusions, the points made with the purpose that they should be received and understood. What a contrast!
Clever, that. The difference between writing to conceal and writing to inform!
Maybe if his aggression fails to allow him to maintain a reputation as a scientist he will turn to the polemicist’s trade. He would, I think, be good at it.
Off thread I suppose, but interesting, at least to me. Anybody like to look around the internet and see what they think?
I think I can write a Mann article myself.
Has he used the phrase "highly-organized fossil-fuel funded disinformers" in his new article?
He has not!
Instead he has reminsced about his graduate days.
Next stop: The Alaska Grizzly Sentinel
Ecclesiastical Uncle - good observation. I noted your use of the different inverted commas to infer doubt. When it comes to Mann, and one particular dataset anyway, inverted is the operative word.
I love Mann! He is probably my favourite within the team!
I imagine the rest of the team groaning with frustration every time he opens his mouth!
I agree that CO2's analogy was rather "over the top", but the behaviour of Mann, Jones and the UK "white washers" has to be described in a way which goes beyond "an alternative opinion" or even "noble cause corruption". I am thinking of adjectives like "bad", "evil" and just plain "corrupt". And of course when you see "evil" or "corruption" in the public place, you normally think of prosecution and ultimately punishment.
The latest report on Mann, both in "scientific paper" and blog comment reinforces my opinion about him but also causes me to wish that his "bad" behaviour be stopped.
I feel uncomfortable as I seem to be echoing the statements of the warmist publicists - though here the boot is on the other foot.
So how will the "Manns" be put in place? How will the truth out? Apart from here et al.?
I'm afraid the world around us will wake up, well not wake up but at least realise that they've followed false prophets and not science, when the costs of this nonsense bite. But the "Manns" and their "Public-Civil Servant apologists will just "slither" (verb purposely chosen) into some new manifestation.
"Hide the decline, and the medieval warm period is here for keeps."
Except that, now, we do not have the MWP; instead, from Mr. Mann, we have the Medieval Climate Anomaly. But then a rose or a stench, by any other name, smells just about the same.
RW
"Bid ideas that didn't stand the test of time".
Not so very different from the history of science, in fact.
I remember that a few weeks ago there was a discussion here of Terence Kealey's talk at the German sceptic conference. He claimed, IIRC, that most scientists never accept that they are wrong. We had quite a debate, with some disagreeing and some agreeing. I think I pointed out that scientists should, and often do, admit to being wrong. But this is increasingly less easy and common as the idea involved is more important. So any scientist who has been big enough to accept that they were wrong about something important deserves kudos in my view - especially if they have a track record of making valuable contributions, as Muller does. What a nasty little man Mann is - a gift to sceptics, in some sense, as noted above.
Can anyone here think of a more laughably exaggerated case of galloping hubris than our chum Meltdown Mann?
"Bid ideas that didn't stand the test of time". Not so very different from the history of science, in fact.
Mr. Hallam, I don't think I agree; you are being altogether too forebearing. It's a piddling idea but a monumental scam. And the history of science unquestionably has its share of frauds and follies, but on this scale? I doubt it!
RW
Maybe we have reached the stage of agreement that MM is not important in Science; that this is a Science blog; and that we could move on, nothing more to see here.
There are more invigorating topics than cutesy ways to denigrate people who have disgraced themselves in the eyes of competent fellow scientists.
Here's a science question. I do not know the answer. Is the amount of free water on Earth essentially constant on (say) a millennium scale? This is asked in relation to ocean level changes, so we have to assume a type of STP condition and other constancies like salinity.
Here's a a deeper one. Is there evidence in newer satellite data that the Earth's gravitational "constant" is indeed constant? I spent many hours with Prof S Warren Carey while he was surmising about an expanding Earth and lamenting that some satellite tests he envisaged would not be complete until after his passing.
BTW, one of Carey's ideas was that an expanding earth would produce a "Ring of Fire" because the curvature of the land would change slowly, pressing its edges into the underlying mantle or basement rock, like a saucer on an expanding balloon. He was a man with big ideas, some of which might have been wrong. For the ones where he was right, on present knowledge, Web searches can be informative.
But, it's your call, Bish.
"the one that did [look at the subject] failed to report that they had found evidence of hiding data"
How is this statement supported ?
Rupert, I certainly wouldn't want to include the global warming hypothesis as a big idea. My point was that if Mann intends abuse by using the phrase "a big idea that didn't stand the test of time" he sets himself against science. The big ideas I was thinking of were things like the corpuscular theory of light and the notion that all physical phenomena can be explained in terms of matter in motion..
In the words of the reviews , we did not consider the science. In other words these reviews tell us nothing what so ever about he validity of the science , in fact given their simply awful nature all they really told us was the degree of arrogance that exist within CRU.
More hokey schtick from Mickey Mann.
With his talent for post normal science and hackle-raising he has done far more to undermine the 'cause' than any sceptic.
Given the human tendency to want to read everything that surfaces with one's name in it, it is difficult to believe that Mann is not familiar with all of this. His role as a propagandist seems to overcome any sense of reality with regard to the actual conclusions and avoidance of conclusions in the congressional testimony and the truncated reviews.
One wonders that the people that deal with him on a daily basis haven't tumbled to this.
"the one that did [look at the subject] failed to report that they had found evidence of hiding data"
How is this statement supported ?
This is like having a jury of twelve data molesters sitting in judgement on a data molester.
==================
Hengist McStone,
All of the inquiries were aware of the CRU track record, but chose to treat this evasion as a trivial matter.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246661/New-scandal-Climate-Gate-scientists-accused-hiding-data-global-warming-sceptics.html
@Political Junkie
That doesn't answer my question. Which enquiry was it and what page is the part where they find evidence of hiding data but ignore it. How , in other words is this statement supported ?
"the one that did [look at the subject] failed to report that they had found evidence of hiding data"
Im not trying to disrupt or irritate, If Bishop Hill's claim is supportable it should be dead easy to answer.
Hengist McStone,
I assume that the Bishop or someone else will resdpond to you more directly.
However, I find it interesting that the fact that the CRU folks escaped criminal prosecution for hiding facts through a really strange six month statute of limitations technicality is obviously of less interest to you than calling out the good Bishop on his wording above.
There's a good rundown of the inquiries and what they found here:
http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/rmck_climategate.pdf
Glen, this is a really good summary of the topic but Hengist has no interest in the broader topic of the strengths and weaknesses of the various inquiries.
He just wants to nail the Bishop on a single sentence.
Mr. McStone,
I wonder whether you've actually read the climategate emails; one rather suspects not. Though an unedifying task, I have - every last grisly one of them. When/if you do so, you may care to illuminate other contributors by stating whether or not you still think Reports thereon were/are necessary and, if so, why. As far as I'm concerned, the emails are a statement as clear as a burglar declaring "It's a fair cop, guv - I done it."
But, perhaps, you'll think otherwise.
RW
PS If you don't have the damning data, do please say so. I'm sure that a copy could be got to you somehow.
Hengist could try this for edification.
http://www.thegwpf.org/gwpf-reports/1531-the-climategate-inquries.html
@Rupert
I've read some of them. I'm starting with the ones Bishop Hill directs me to. Unfortunately I find that they are not always what he claims them to be. For example in his interview with Nuclear Street he passes off his own commentary as part of the email record.
http://muchachoverde.blogspot.com/2011/06/facts-get-in-way-of-montys-commentary.html
Now, how is this statement supported ?,
... "the one that did [look at the subject] failed to report that they had found evidence of hiding data"
Hengist's moment of glory:
He thinks that his "Big Book of Bishop Blunders" has doubled in length - to two items.
I've asked numerous times how is this statement supported ?
... "the one that did [look at the subject] failed to report that they had found evidence of hiding data"
It shouldn't be that difficult. One of the enquiries (which?) found evidence (where ?)
In argument, Mann has two tactics. The first and most powerful is ad hominem. His comment on the Muller interview is one long ad hominem. His second tactic is refraining from addressing any criticism of him or his work. In this letter, Mann simply refrains from addressing the topic of the evidence. Of course, he does give a reference to other articles, but there is no point in reading them because Mann would refrain from addressing any criticisms that came from them. In this letter, he reveals that he is as self-absorbed as any fifteen year old. He is one good upbringing short of being a genuine participant in adult give and take.
Hengist
What I was referring to was the Russell inquiry's discovery that Briffa had taken emails "home for safekeeping" (citation per the GWPF report).
"One might hope, however, that a scientist known for big ideas that didn’t stand the test of time might be more circumspect when it comes to his critiques of other scientists. "
Well, quite. He doesn't know the meaning of irony, does he?
Mr. McStone
I really do have better things to do than to get involved further in what is essentially a trivial issue. So do you, I hope. As a final word (from me, at any rate), now that you have had an answer to your question, perhaps you'd care to answer mine which, to repeat, was:
"When/if you do so, you may care to illuminate other contributors by stating whether or not you still think Reports thereon were/are necessary and, if so, why."
And, yes, in the interests of precision, I do know that, as framed, my wording does not grammatically constitute a question. That is taken to be implied.
RW
I love projection.