Bishop Hill Hanging the laundry out
Jan 28, 2012 Climate: Mann FOI In an article entitled Global warming’s ‘dirty laundry’, The Washington Times has called for the University of Virginia to release Michael Mann's emails.
Mr. Mann insists disclosure would have a chilling effect. “Allowing the indiscriminate release of these materials will cause damage to reputations and harm principles of academic freedom,” he wrote in an August letter to UVA.
As important as it is to protect Mr. Mann’s feelings from being hurt, trillions of dollars are at stake with climate-policy decisions being made based on his work. From cap-and-trade to the Kyoto treaty, it’s not enough to make a choice based solely on a trust that this secretive cabal of climate scientists is telling the truth. The taxpayers paid Mr. Mann; they deserve to know exactly what they were getting for their money.
So far, the Climategate disclosures have unmasked shoddy methods in service of a leftist public-policy agenda. Compelling release of all communications - dirty laundry and all - is the only way to provide the full context. Let an informed public decide on its own whether they’ve been hoodwinked by charlatans, or that the sky really is falling.
The point is an important one. Mann would have us believe that he is just bashful about his laundry being seen in public. But the public needs to know that there's nothing worse to be revealed.
Reader Comments (31)
Its worth remember that the same university had no issues with releasing e-mails when Greenpeace came calling . And those now demanding Manns emails be kept secret, because of academic freedom, had nothing to say . Guess that was 'different'
This is quite a hard hitting editorial from the Washington Times. The message seems to be slowly spreading that all is not well in the climatesphere.
If he is so cock-sure of his methodology, if he is so sure of the science, if his belief in himself and of his team is so resolute, then why oh why is he so reticent in releasing all relevant data and 'correspondence'?
This, is bigger than one individual's personal integrity - and using that sleight of hand "will cause damage to reputations": will no longer wash.
That the stakes are so high, is very much down to a claque of scientists who fudged and manipulated data sets but then who also scurrilously championed and campaigned on this single issue [mmCO2=global warming]. The saying, 'hoist with one's own petard' springs readily to mind.
But ultimately as the Washington Times points out, the taxpayer funded their adventure and they must be held to account.
We all want to know - but did they lead the world 'up the garden path' - we know that they did - how could one not think anything else and what delicious irony because in the end, just who is at fault for that Mr. Mann?
Your Grace
"Mr. Mann insists disclosure would have a chilling effect."
Should he not be fully in favour of disclosure?
DP
“Allowing the indiscriminate release of these materials will cause damage to reputations and harm principles of academic freedom,”
I wonder why they'd damage reputations.?
Could it be because they'd show a pattern of deceipt, lying, bullying , etc, etc?
Surely not.
And why would academic freedom be damaged?
If this whole sorry episode simply ends with the discredited science and scientists being recognised as such, there will be nothing to celebrate unless there are legislative reforms to guard against future subversion of open debate. I hope that Sir Alan and his Committee are paying attention:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/justice-committee/news/foi-announce/
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/12/20/justice-committee-call-for-evidence.html
The "Washington Times" seems like a very strange thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times
Surely this blog is above quoting the Washington Times?
'Mr Mann insists that disclosure would have a chilling effect.'
Surely that's exactly what the world needs then - to counteract 'global warming'..?
I don't see that the Washington Times being originally founded by The Unification Church is much different to the Indie being owned by a Russian oligarch, The Times being owned by Rupert Murdoch or the Graun being propped up by the sale of second hand cars.
intelligent people will read them and draw their own conclusions.
It's become a standard weapon of the left to try and control the narrative by demanding sources they don't agree with should be excluded.
Pesonally, I find the perpetual, hysterical, biased whingeing of the Guardian and its activist hacks quite hard to tolerate, but I understand that it brings great solace to a few bitter, impotent male schoolteachers and sexually frustrated lady social workers - so live and let live.
Foxgoose
You could have added that the Christian Science Monitor has a very high reputation for reportage also.
Like you I am heartily fed up with the low-level muttering against anything that doesn't fit the narrative whether it's the Washington Times or "vested corporate interests" or GW Bush (or Reagan or Thatcher).
I'm also getting rather tired of the bleating from the climate "science" community that they can't get a fair hearing in the "overwhelmingly sceptic" press when it's been virtually impossible for the last 15 years to pick up any mainstream newspaper and find a word of criticism about the warmists and enthusiastic denigration of anyone who questions the orthodoxy.
And the current example of bleating is exemplified by the Gleick Forbes contribution attacking the recent WSJ letter
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/01/27/remarkable-editorial-bias-on-climate-science-at-the-wall-street-journal/
[Snip - I think that could be misinterpreted]
Fox and Mike fully agree the source is of no relevance! the idea that scientists need to account for what they do with our money and how they act towards those they feel may question or god forbid find fault with their musings is valid no matter who asks it !
apologies - it didn't occur to me that people would take it the wrong way, but i understand
[BH adds: I appreciate the intent was completely innocent, but it's good to be careful. Don't worry about it.]
mat
Bit abstruse for me, that.
Can you make your meaning a bit clearer? I'd hate to misunderstand you.
We should all realise that the continued hegemony of the World's financial system depends on the justification by the IPCC of carbon trading. Yet after 1997 when the direct link between CO2 and end of ice age warming was broken, that science degenerated into scientific fraud and the real explanation of much present warming, also the amplification of tsi change at the end of ice ages, has nothing to do with CO2.
Every legal tactic under the sun and much illegal stuff will be used to stop the release of these e-mails.
mat,
Surely the source is somewhat relevant. If the Washington Post had published that - now that would be something. (And would probably mean that hell had just frozen over.)
Gleick screams like he's being tortured.
=========
An interesting observation -- To which I inquire -- Just what does that mean? Assuming that the science in pure and the intellectual processes impeccable as Mikey protests, just how is the damage done?
Methinks he knows just what shite is wrapped up in the dirty linen he is trying so hard to hide.
As usual, Shakespeare, through Hamlet, had the words that cover this:
Polonius, Act I, scene iiiMann wrote:
The emails are only indiscriminate because of Mann's ignorance of the law. He did not have to use 'work' computers paid for by taxpayers to send the emails he does not want disclosing.
I was sent an email at work, well before 1995, that advised that before sending an email, think of it pinned to the Company's notice board (for your manager to see), stuck on the Village notice board (for your neighbours to see) and sent to your Mum, for her to read. If you were a little unhappy with any of those scenarios, then amend before sending.
Obviously, this email wasn't sent to Mann or his associates.
Robert Christopher
Excellent advice. The way it was explained to me about the same time is "An email is a post card which anyone can read."
I am also curious about the assertion of "..damage to reputations and harm principles of academic freedom".
The major principle of academic freedom that I'm aware of is the freedom to espouse unpopular views [i.e. to have a damaged reputation!] but not be fired for doing so. Is he arguing that only emails involving non-tenured academics should be excluded from release?
Jan 28, 2012 at 1:34 PM | Pharos
Why does Forbes publish Gleick? Gleick has nothing to say. His editorials achieved the status of "Kitsch" some time ago. Oh, maybe I answered my own question.
@ Jan 28, 2012 at 3:55 PM | James Evans
Surely the source is somewhat relevant. If the Washington Post had published that - now that would be something. (And would probably mean that hell had just frozen over.)
_________________________________
Surely it is more relevant whether or not the Bish's quote is worth reading, whether published by W.Post, W.Times, The National Examiner or The Beano. And the quote is absolutely correct.
And I for one would certainly not accept the Washington Post as a reliable source on anything related to climate "science". They are as bad as the Grauniad.
What is wrong with reputations being wrecked by the truth coming out?
Martin Brumby,
"Surely it is more relevant whether or not the Bish's quote is worth reading, whether published by W.Post, W.Times, The National Examiner or The Beano."
The interesting questions to me are - Who is going to be reading the article? And does the appearance of the article indicate any change in attitudes amongst the liberal establishment?
The New Zealand Climate Change blog has a long contribution on the letter in WSJ.
http://newzealandclimatechange.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/the-impact-of-climategate-ii/
"My guess is that, without the fear of career damage, the quest for grants, the dubious ‘consensus’ would look even more threadbare than it already is. "
Will surely recommend this site to some friends! Very interesting site and articles.Really thankful for sharing. Regards,