Wednesday
Jun302010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill A late submission to Sir Muir
Jun 30, 2010 Climate: Russell Mann et al have submitted a (very late) tale of woe to Sir Muir Russell's emails review. The signatories are a veritable who's who of hockey and this team's pucks are considerably out of kilter.
They need Sir Muir to protect them from harassment, they need Sir Muir to defend the "consensus" and they want Sir Muir to write off some of the evidence completely as not being in good faith. Oh yes, and does Sir Muir know they were harassed?
Give me strength.
Read it here.
Reader Comments (93)
This immediately sprang to mind: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/the-anosognosics-dilemma-1/
We tend to forget that most prominent climate scientists got started in the field when it was a total backwater of no importance - a sinecure for timeserving academic nonentities. They're not all stupid, but in general, it's not a field that's attracted the best of the best.
Stuff like this letter shows that they're not malicious - they just don't understand that they don't understand.
Gecko, yeah, that one sticks in my craw. Manifest scientific advocacy.. "never mind the science, it's the message that's important! Stay on message! Make sure you say this.."
I'm at the point, now, where I think THEY don't even know they're doing it! Their disregard of the scientific method is so deeply rooted, they're not even PRETENDING to do science any more.
dave, I've postured before that their field has not been "parented" properly. They started out small and insignificant, left to their own devices, and simply haven't been guided in the ethics of science. Climate science is a bit like a feral child.
Late submissions - how IPCC like.
Methinks this is all part of an extensive and orchestrated PR exercise. There has obviously been a concerted campaign, a build up to the publication of Sir Muir Russell's report (PNAS blacklist, BBC reports, so called public meetings, carefully selected and placed media annoucements). I suspect that elements and key findings of Sir Muir Russell's late, very late, review have been leaked delibrately so that key figures already have a response in place.
Expect a WHITEWASH, but also expect a very public show of UNITY over the CONSENSUS.
I wondered if the Panorama programme and other MSM releases over the last week or two had been purposefully positioned ahead of Sir Muir reporting. It had been very quiet on the AGW/MSM sales front for quite a while. Hmm..
Lets not-never forget what one these signatories, Stephen H. Schneider, had to say on how to play the climate game, "We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." - 1989.
Every one these signatories took their cue from that.
Obviously the H in Stephen H. Schneider doesn't stand for Honest.
Check out Schmidt's signature. I can only make out 4 letters in his surname.
that's it! the tabacco industry are corrupting climate science! their dirty finger prints are all over these demands for intermediate calculations.
(if an intermediate calculation isn't given shouldn't it be called a 'fudge'?)
John Shade: A letter from, it would seem, some desperately anxious people. But why? What has Muir Russell done that would suggest they have much to worry about? Is it because the weight of the submissions is such that he cannot be expected to do a complete whitewash?
Did I once see something saying that Muir and Co intended to give an advance view of their report to anyone criticised in it?
Reading between the lines:
1. In formulating recommendations to ensure that scientific data are appropriately
disclosed (while at the same time protecting scientists and enabling them to carry
out their research), it may be useful to take account of experience in the U.S., and
to seek international consistency in this area.
Climate scientists should not be subject to FOI requests, our work is too important for that. Probably, already, a key Russell reccommendation.
2. We believe that it is important to state unequivocally in your findings (and any
summary of your findings) that nothing that you have seen calls into question the
scientific consensus on human-caused climate change.
We must continue with the scare stories. Russell will undoubtly restate the party line.
3. Not all the evidence submitted to the ICCER comes from parties with genuine
interest in furthering scientific understanding. We hope that this can be taken into
account in evaluating the credibility of submitted evidence.
The naysayers, the holocaust deniers, the flat-earthers should be ignored and publicly denounced. A Russell given.
4. We hope you are able to acknowledge and take into account the prolonged and
intense campaign of harassment that has been directed at CRU and other climate
scientists.
The gatekeepers of the AGW faith, the truthseekers, should not be questioned or criticised. Another Russell given.
It sounds like they thought Sir Muir really was independent. He might have to be, now!
Mann (if indeed it was he) started his rant by talking about "we Climate Scientists". As a number of people asked in another thread here this week, what do you have to do to be called a Climate Scientist?
As far as I know Mann does not have a qualification in Climate Science, he has a PHD in Meteorology. Meteorology is basically a study of how our atmosphere works and unfortunately for Mr Mann, the atmosphere is governed by the laws of Fluid Dynamics and the Navier Stokes equations. These equations have never been solved and there is a million dollar prize available (from the Cray Institute USA) to any mathematician who can even suggest how to solve them. Somehow I dont think that will be won by Mann.
Didn’t the Bishop hear a whisper some weeks ago that the report was to be issued imminently and speculated it would be at the end of that week. I wonder how the dates fit together with a copy of a provisional report being released and the date on the resent submission followed perhaps by the report being held up for a while to be amended.
This submission is from megolamaniacs inc
This submission is harassment at its most blatant
This submission is nefarious
This submission is histrionic
This submission is classic Paranoia
This submission is disingenuous
I am certain that they will rue the day they signed and sent in this submission But:
"The moving finger writes
and having writ, moves on
nor all your(their) piety nor wit
shall lure it back to cancel half a line."
I admit that I have much to learn in classical literature. I had to look up pesadia's quote, to find it comes from The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyam, and means:
Whatever one does in one's life is one's own responsibility and cannot be changed.
Re; jim edwards
"Gavin is apparently aware that his e-mails are discoverable under federal FOIA; how can he sign a letter that implies that they aren't - and that CRU personnel should be, therefore, protected from UK FOI law ?"
But Gavin is not a lawyer. He highlighted this in a comment over on collide-a-scape here-
http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/06/21/the-climate-experts/#comment-9476
"I agree, moving towards a more segregated system is very wise – and I have done so and am advising widely to others to do the same. But FOIA requests are coming in asking for stuff back to 1999 – and actions taken today are not going to deal with retrospective practice."
Unfortunately after some possibly bad advice from Lucia. So Gavin and co have said publicly they're creating a back-channel to attempt to subvert future FOIA, FOI or EIA requests. Now that's known, that's discoverable. I also think FOI legislators and regulators would take a dim view of such practices, especially given some Team members previous contempt for FOI or EIA legislation.
They still don't grasp the principle behind FOI law, which is to encourage publication by default. If they'd done that earlier, much of the animosity could have been avoided.
"So Gavin and co have said publicly they're creating a back-channel to attempt to subvert future FOIA, FOI or EIA requests"
In other words, they openly admit to trying to conceal what they're doing*. Now why would that be...?
*In some cases, while being publicly funded to do it!
Pesadia, Pharos
Also from the Rubaiyat:
"Why, all the Saints and Sages who discuss'd
Of the Two Worlds so learnedly, are thrust
Like foolish Prophets forth; their Works to Scorn
Are scatter'd, and their Mouths are stopt with Dust "
I would bet money that this was largely penned by Mann. It has his style about it.
The signatories to this letter appear to have no sense of how pompous, arrogant and condescending they sound, but that is what they have been like all along. Who do they think they are? Demi-gods? All they have to do is release the data and code and allow people to replicate results. The hubris shown by these people is quite staggering and the continual retoric almost beggars belief.
Having followed the science for the past 10 years, the emails, read the books I have absolutely no doubt that they are a bunch of charlatans who will go down in infamy. They will be remembered only as lessons for undergraduates on the corruption of science and will regret ever putting their signatures to this letter.
Pride comes before a fall...
JamesP-
"In other words, they openly admit to trying to conceal what they're doing*. Now why would that be...?"
They've learned nothing from this? To give him some benefit of doubt, it may purely be for entirely personal, private, non-work related traffic. But that's better handled via a smartphone, and still may be subject to disclosure if used in company time.
ThinkingScientist
I agree with your assessment of the letter and its authorship -- all one needs to do is look at the video the BBC did of Mann with the chainsaw.
And I agree that, in time, he and the others in the Hockey Team will be discredited. That will come suddenly, probably when they become expendable by the puppet masters pulling the strings. This happened to Lysenko when Stalin lost interest. One day, the puppet masters will find it convenient to lose interest as well. Mann and the others are making fools of themselves and it is beginning to be noticed.
Until then we will have to put up with their braying sounds.
Don Pablo de la Sierra
Braying is an excellent choice of word
Has anyone checked what proportion of the signatories to the Submission 0103 show up as to/from in the emails?
Not long before we see these signatures pop up at the foot of on-line climate and fraud confessions and requests for research grants for Svensmark into solar effects and cloud formation ;-)
The question that should be asked.
Was this late submission by Team members due to a prompt by Sir Muir Russell?
If it was it puts the submission in a totally different light.
Martin A,
A while back a ran a word frequency count on the entire mail folder and got this-
mann 3400
climate 3367
jones 2740
phil 2255
briffa 2180
keith 2012
science 1520
model 1411
ipcc 1291
ucar 1281
mike 1265
tom 1228
tim 1161
psu 1145
arizona 1115
osborn 1098
virginia 1002
Which still makes me think the source was an inside job and FOI related. I think the signatories to that letter are just the usual Team effort, lead by it's captain.
As an aside if you read carefully the CRUTape letters you can come up with two individuals who probably 'did it'.
Atomic Hairdryer
An interesting analysis. Twice as much climate as science.
I hope you look into why Rose irks them so much. :)
Reading the latest twist of the tale over at Climate Audit
http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/01/oxburgh-and-the-jones-admission/
I’m wondering which of the following applies:-
1) The enquiry teams are as dumb as a box of rocks if they don’t know that the investigations have looked crooked.
2) The enquiries have been carried out by a bunch of crooks and are therefore crooked.
3) The enquiry teams don’t believe in AGW and want the investigators to look like a bunch of crooks to discredit AGW theory.
4) They are so biased they see crooked.
5) They think the public are dumb as a box of rocks and don’t recognise crooked when they see it?
6) Some other explanation that will turn out to be more bent that a Bishop’s crook.
Dung,
From Mann's on-line bio:
"Dr. Michael E. Mann received his undergraduate degrees in Physics and Applied Math from the University of California at Berkeley, an M.S. degree in Physics from Yale University, and a Ph.D. in Geology & Geophysics from Yale University."
Please can BH be set to display more 20 comments per page? It isn't fabulous having to page through so much.
On page 1 of the comments, Shub wrote:
I know what's troubling them.
It is Sheldon Ungar's analysis of a rampage of public and professional opinion on a paper by Enstrom and Kabat on the risks of second-hand smoke.
For those who are interested, Silencing science: partisanship and the career of a publication disputing the dangers of secondhand smoke, by Sheldon Ungar and Dennis Bray, can be found here
"at least if one's research findings tend to support human caused climate change"....
the only findings that their "research" has come up with are computer generated falsehoods.
Any realworld data that their research uncovers is quickly ditched or hidden, when it doesn't support the computer model/their pre determined outcome, or modified untill it does. Honestly they remind me of the kid who takes his football home when he's loseing.
TinyCO2,
'Some other explanation that will turn out to be more bent that a Bishop’s crook.'
While the good Bishop is the shepherd of his flock, others may indeed be the little crooks on the staff.
Sunderland Steve,
Here's an interesting quote from the Penn State whitewash job on Mann's conduct recently published:
"In a follow-up question, Dean of the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences (Dr. William Easterling) was asked whether he saw any difference between certain kinds of experimental scientific fields and observational ones like paleoclimatology. He responded by stating that much of what we know about climate change is the result of a combination of observation and numerical modeling, making the classic idea of falsification of a hypothesis, which may be applicable to a laboratory science, of limited applicability in the study of climate change."
My emphasis.
I really like this recommendation: "To ensure that your findings do not fuel dangerous misconceptions, we feel it should be made absolutely clear – as every serious review of the stolen emails has already confirmed – that nothing in the emails calls into question the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change." Here we have a panel which has explicitly denied the ability and charter to review the science done by CRU being asked to draw a blanket conclusion about AGW.
Recommendation "To ensure that your findings do not fuel dangerous misconceptions, we feel it should be made absolutely clear – as every serious review of the stolen emails has already confirmed – that nothing in the emails calls into question the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change."
So ............... Sir Muir Russell - unless your findings reflect our point of view, you are not a "serious reviewer"! Who do they think they are?
DJS could be D.J. Shea.
I searched the climategate emails for "D. J. S"
This submission was clearly based on Mann having knowledge of the conclusions of the Penn State report.
It's intent was to state to the Russell review team that on this side of the pond we have been cleared and it is now the duty of Russell to support that position in the US.
Mann is after a double exoneration .............. and he will get it.
As expected, Russell will be another WHITEWASH.
..."nothing in the emails calls into question the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change."
I guess this invites the questions:
Was there anything in the emails which confirmed the membership of the (global? universal?) "scientific consensus"?
Or indeed anything that confirmed the "science" on which the alleged consensus agrees?
It would be nice, if Sir Muir is to align his report with the suggested position, if he could state these explicitly.
Apologies and blushes, I stand corrected DrCrinum
I think most of us, as in those who are reading this site and are thus probably quite well informed, agree the UK government are covering up ClimateGate. The CRU have been whole-heartedly discredited and would, under normal circumstances, be called to account.
The UK government (sadly both Brown's and Cameron's) wants Global Warming. It is providing GBP50 billion per year in extra taxes:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100046507/never-mind-the-climategate-whitewash-what-about-our-new-50-billion-annual-climate-bill/
They need evidence to legitimise this tax. Mann et al provide it and they, in turn, will be protected.