Apr 20

Michael Mann:

“Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!”

Chronic doom peddler Paul Ehrlich pretty much told his fellow alarmists to “man up” when he said:

“Scientists must now emphasize the science, while acknowledging that they are in a street fight.”

But, when Ehrlich said that I really thought he meant attacking skeptical scientists on the science, not threatening a lawsuit over a joke video.

Man up, Mike!

6 people like this post.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with:
Mar 08

The Weekly Standard’s Steven F. Hayward has penned what is in my opinion the definitive essay on the state of the global warming movement at this moment, In Denial: The meltdown of the climate campaign. The cover says it all:

7 people like this post.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with:
Feb 03

Nothing definitive from Penn State, but my take is that if they were going to sweep Michael Mann’s role in Climategate under the rug, they wouldn’t bother with continuing the investigation.

University Park, Pa. — An internal inquiry by Penn State into the research and scholarly activities of a well-known climate scientist will move into the investigatory stage, which is the next step in the University’s process for reviewing research conduct.

A University committee has concluded its inquiry into allegations of research impropriety that were leveled in November against Professor Michael Mann, after information contained in a collection of stolen e-mails was revealed. More than a thousand e-mails are reported to have been “hacked” from computer servers at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in England, one of the main repositories of information about climate change.

During the inquiry, all relevant e-mails pertaining to Mann or his work were reviewed, as well as related journal articles, reports and additional information. The committee followed a well-established University policy during the inquiry (http://guru.psu.edu/policies/ra10.html ).

In looking at four possible allegations of research misconduct, the committee determined that further investigation is warranted for one of those allegations. The recommended investigation will focus on determining if Mann “engaged in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities.” A full report (http://www.research.psu.edu/orp) concerning the allegations and the findings of the inquiry committee has been submitted.

Hat tip: Matt Dempsey

3 people like this post.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with:
Feb 02

A Mother Nature Network blogger wonders:

The question is worth asking. You’d have to be pretty tone deaf not to realize the score to which we’ve all been dancing has hit a few sour notes of late: the failure of the Copenhagen COP-15 talks, Climategate, and last week’s State of the Union address (with its litany of nukes, coal, and offshore drilling).An unfortunate series of temporary setbacks, perhaps.

The problem with being a one-issue movement is it only takes a single game changer to bring everything to a standstill.

Do you suppose he could be referring to Climategate? ;)

3 people like this post.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with:
Jan 14

Climategate: The Crutaper Letters, written by Steven Mosher and Tom Fuller has just been released:

The Climategate scandal covered from beginning to end–from ‘Hide the Decline’ to the current day. Written by two authors who were on the scene–Steven Mosher and Tom Fuller–Climategate takes you behind that scene and shows what happened and why.

For those who have heard that the emails were taken out of context–we provide that context and show it is worse when context is provided.

For those who have heard that this is a tempest in a teacup–we show why it will swamp the conventional wisdom on climate change.

And for those who have heard that this scandal is just ‘boys being boys’–well, boy. It’s as seamy as what happened on Wall Street.

Mosher, widely known, as a “lukewarmer” is perhaps the one man outside of the Motley CRU, The Hockey Team, and the whistle blower/hacker to receive the file, and recognize the game-changing importance of what he was reading.  Mosher’s story was told in vivid detail a couple of days ago by Steve McIntyre.

Tom Fuller is a writer and self-described “liberal skeptic”, and was perhaps the first journalist to cover the Climategate story in detail as it was breaking.

So, one is a liberal  and the other is a “lukewarmer”, so it’s hard to dismiss them out-of-hand as right-wing ideologues.  Undoubtedly, Joe Romm and others will smear them anyway – it’s what the alarmists do when they’re desperate.

Hat tip: Many thanks to Steven Mosher for the heads up.

8 people like this post.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with:
Jan 13

The Climategate curtain is opened a bit further courtesy of Patrick Courrielche at Big Journalism:

Few outside the climate skeptic circle have ever heard of Steven Mosher. An open-source software developer, statistical data analyst, and thought of as the spokesperson of the lukewarmer set, Mosher hasn’t made any of the mainstream media outlets covering the story of Climategate. But make no mistake about it – when it comes to dissemination of the story, Steven Mosher is to Climategate what Woodward and Bernstein were to Watergate. He was just the right person, with just the right influence, and just the right expertise to be at the heart of the promulgation of the files.

One could even argue that Mosher is one of the few people with the right assortment of circumstances, and associates, to understand the significance of the Climategate files and the technical expertise to post them on various locations using open proxies, a method hackers use to hide their identities while online. Given that the Climategate files came from computers with IP addresses in Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, open proxies is most likely the technique used by the person who posted the files and links on ClimateAudit, RealClimate, and the Air Vent.

Several days before the Climategate files were made public, Mosher says he had been given the files from an undisclosed source. “[The] file came to me in the form of a CD, and I was asked by people to take a look at it and give my opinion whether it was a hoax or not.”

Mosher, having participated in submitting requests for data and code to the Climate Research Unit (CRU), was the perfect outsider to authenticate the files. Mosher also successfully lobbied NASA to release temperature data and code in 2007. With the file in hand, “I didn’t sleep,” he said, while embarking on reviewing the emails to check timelines against various historical events, as well as calling colleagues to check the Climategate emails against the actual emails they received.

Having felt that it was highly unlikely that it was a hoax, Mosher went one step further. “Prior to [the emails] being public, I got confirmation from sources inside CRU that the files I held were real.”

Read the rest (highly recommended) at Big Journalism.

From my vanatage point, it seems inevitable that we will soon find out who the whistleblower/hacker is – and the case seems to be building that it was likely a whistleblower.

Hat tip: Bishop Hill via Roger Pielke, Jr.

UPDATE:

According to Steven McIntyre, it seems Mosher received the CD in question from Watts Up With That’s moderator, CTM (Charles The Moderator), who made a CD copy of the Climategate dossier that was left on/accessed from a held/unmoderated comment left on What’s Up With That around the same time that it was left on The Air Vent:

On the evening of November 17, at around the same time that links were placed at Jeff Id’s and Warren Meyer’s, the same comment with the same link was also sent to WUWT, a moderated site, where it caught the attention of moderator CTM, who notified Anthony right away. Both Anthony and CTM downloaded the dossier. Anthony was in Europe attending a conference and didn’t want to do anything until he was back in the States and pledged CTM not to disseminate the FTP link until he was back in the States. As a precaution, CTM made CD copies of the zipfile, giving one of the copies to Mosher, who began poring over the emails

Therefore, my insinuation that Mosher may know the identity of the whistleblower/hacker appears to be incorrect, and is probably a dead end.

3 people like this post.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with:
Dec 30

Michael Mann, of hockey stick fame and Mike’s Nature Trick” fame, has written a letter to the editor of The Wall Street Journal.  You’ll see below that The Journal’s editors note that Dr. Mann had just recently declined a request to explain his e-mail exchanges in the leaked Climategate e-mails, but he obviously can’t resist a chance to get preachy about the need to keep science journals unpolluted by politics.  Does he really think that people will take this letter seriously?

In his Dec. 18 op-ed “How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus,” Patrick J. Michaels of the Cato Institute falsely claims that work by him (and other fossil-fuel-funded climate change contrarians) has been unfairly blocked by me and others from appearing in mainstream science journals because the peer review process is supposedly biased against climate science deniers.In truth, the only bias that exists at such publications is for well-reasoned writing that is buttressed by facts.

That is why climate skeptics such as Richard Lindzen of MIT or John Christy of the University of Alabama—who are widely regarded as credible and whose work contributes meaningfully to the scientific discourse—have no problem publishing their work in mainstream scientific journals.

And what about those who are not being published? Every scientist dealing with a major public issue must decide if he or she is going to be a scientist or a de facto politician.

Mr. Michaels and many climate science deniers have opted for the latter course of action. For example, presidential science adviser John Holdren notes that Mr. Michaels “has published little if anything of distinction . . . being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream climate science.” This makes Mr. Michaels a perfect candidate for a Wall Street Journal op-ed and a decidedly poor submitter to a serious scientific journal.

Society relies upon the integrity of the scientific literature to inform sound policy. It is thus a serious offense to compromise the peer-review system in such a way as to allow anyone—including proponents of climate change science—to promote unsubstantiated claims and distortions.

The good news is that it is not happening today in relation to either climate scientists or the deniers of climate science. Men and women who have dedicated their lives to advancing science need not apologize for keeping their rigorous professional journals free of the pollution of what is purely politics.

Michael E. Mann

Professor, Meteorology Department

Penn State University

Director, Penn State Earth System Science Center

University Park, Pa.

Editor’s note: Several weeks ago, we invited Mr. Mann to write a feature explaining his email exchanges that were revealed as part of the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit’s document disclosure. He declined.

9 people like this post.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with:
preload preload preload