This is the second part. If you haven’t read Part 1, you should probably go there first.
A quick recap of Part 1: Michael E. Mann is suing some of his critics for defamation. Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) is the group backing his litigation. Jeff Ruch is the Executive Director of PEER. Mann’s case may have been compromised by his online exchanges with Kelly Anspaugh, former lecturer of English literature, Ohio State University. [P.S. Click image for larger version]
Kelly Anspaugh seems to think that PEER actually mean what they say in their mission statement. Regardless of the ‘merits’ of his case, I don’t think Jeff Ruch will be leaping to his defence any time soon. But PEER and their associates are on a mission.
On February 21, 2012, the day after Wamsley’s article at Crock of the Week, Jeff Ruch, Scott Mandia and Joshua Wolfe (on behalf of PEER and the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund), published an open letter to Heartland, on the same web site (also reposted at ThinkProgress.org). After some gloating at the actions of climate-alarmist Peter Gleick, (who tried to pass off a forged document purporting to be a “Strategy Memo” of the climate-skeptic Heartland Institute) PEER and the CSLDF announced their plans.
… the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund views the malicious and fraudulent manner in which the Climatic Research Unit documents were obtained and/or thereafter disseminated, as well as the repeated blogs about them, as providing the basis for civil actions against those who obtained and/or disseminated them and blogged about them. The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund fully intends to pursue all possible actionable civil remedies to the fullest extent of the law.
We respectfully ask the Heartland Institute, all activists, bloggers, and other journalists to immediately remove all of these documents and any quotations taken from them, from their blogs, Web sites, and publications, and to publish retractions.
However, PEER and the CSLDF are mocking Heartland. That last paragraph was copied from Heartland’s initial response to Gleick’s actions. They, as many other climate-alarmists have done, are trying to equate Gleick’s actions with those of the Climategate hacker/whistleblower. Instead they actually highlight the differences. Here are Heartland’s sentences that immediately preceded that paragraph.
It does not express Heartland’s goals, plans, or tactics. It contains several obvious and gross misstatements of fact.
The Climategate emails (in or out of context) contain many “gross misstatements of fact”. But, unlike the forged Heartland document, the emails do “express” the “goals, plans” and “tactics” of their authors -the leading scientists propping up the whole catastrophic man-made global warming edifice. Those scientists have never denied this.
When Gleick could not find anything really damning in the genuine documents that he phished, he forged a document with suitably damning fake quotes and disseminated that in amongst the genuine ones. Whether he was the one who actually authored the forgery is moot. Gleick’s addition of the digital signature “Heartland Insider” is just as much an act of forgery as adding a false signature to a fake document with pen on paper.
Nobody has forged any emails from the UEA and tried to pass them off as genuine, probably because the ones that were released are damning enough all by themselves.
Heartland has every right to demand retractions. The genuine documents contain home addresses, telephone numbers and personal details of Heartland staff (something Gleick specifically phished for). Their distribution threatens the safety of their employees.
Jeff Ruch et al know this and are flippant about it. However, their open letter cannot be viewed as parody. Lawyers don’t do parody. “I was only joking” is not, I think, an argument that a competent judge would swallow.
Their letter also contains language –like “malicious and fraudulent”– that Heartland did not use. I think it should be treated for what it is, a legal threat issued by lawyers. I’m going treat it as such.
Delete all references to deletion of emails
It is not clear what kind of “retraction” they demand. How do you retract somebody else’s verbatim quotation? How about this?
Retraction: Phil Jones did not say “to hide the decline” he actually said “plot all the tree-ring series, warts n’ all, to the end of the chart, so that people can see the ‘divergence problem’ and make an informed decision about the validity of our conclusions, honest and upstanding scientists that we are”.
Their demands also run counter to some of the recommendations of the reports that Mann’s lawyers now cite in support of their client, such as the U.K., House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, HC 387-I, which said “We consider that further suspicion could have been allayed by releasing all the e-mails.” I guess the committee was just being “malicious and fraudulent”.
Indeed, PEER and CSLDF didn’t qualify their accusation with a phrase like “some of those who”. So their letter apparently accuses everyone who disseminated or blogged about the CRU emails of behaving in a “malicious and fraudulent manner”. And as the same two organizations have gone to great lengths to assert that merely describing someone’s work, or part of it, as “fraudulent” is grounds for a defamation suit, they have, with this letter, by their own definition, defamed thousands of other organisations and people. This is a much more specific slur than Anspaugh’s. I hope some of those who stand accused “pursue all possible actionable civil remedies to the fullest extent of the law”. PEER and CSLDF are “providing the basis for” it.
They could, of course, argue that “fraudulent” is a common adjective of political discourse and that they weren’t accusing anyone of something as specific as “academic fraud” and thereby implying that they had falsified or fabricated emails. But then they would be contradicting themselves and (if the law made any sense) be conceding the Mann defamation case. In any case, their letter is not political discourse. It is a legal threat written by lawyers who are fully aware of the legal meaning, in a legal context, of the phrase “malicious and fraudulent”. That’s why they chose it.
According to their own criteria and logic, there are thousands of organizations, journalists and bloggers that PEER and CSLDF could have chosen to sue, including many who have described Michael Mann or his hockey stick as fraudulent or similar. But they didn’t until now. Of course, they have no intention of suing “all activists, bloggers, and other journalists” who published quotations from the CRU emails. The purpose of these legal thugs, as their defamation suits make clear, is to intimidate people into silence.
‘Illegal to deny climate change’
As part of such a campaign, they need to make a ‘Serengeti’ example of someone. If they obtain any kind of legal victory in the defamation case, including one solely based on the Sandusky ‘comparison’ they will likely claim it as another ‘vindication’ of Mann and his work. And another fraud will have been perpetrated on the general public.
Given the chance, Michael Mann would go much farther to silence climate-skeptics. David Appell reports that when he interviewed him, Mann said he thought it would eventually be illegal to deny climate change. Yet he is also suing fellow scientist Dr. Timothy Ball for his quip that “Mann should not be at Penn State but in a State Pen”. However, Mann is not unique in his desire to punish ‘deniers’. James Hansen, for example. would have them tried for “high crimes against humanity and nature” and there are others who would do worse.
Like a bad penny, Kelly Anspaugh was also at Crock of the Week when PEER’s letter was published, to chip in his tuppence worth, which suggests that many readers will indeed not assume it to be parody.
Atta boys! Up and at em! Good one, Jeff! Make them feel the keen edge of our legal sword!
And if you want to see the sword, you will find the terrifying weapon being brandished here.
As Richard Littlemore at DeSmogBlog said in the wake of Peter Gleick’s disgrace, “It’s a bird; it’s a hockey stick; it’s a faked document!” No, it’s Scott Mandia of the Climate Science Legal Defence Fund making a visual snowclone (or clown) of himself.
Mandia, in the most graphic way possible, amply demonstrates that the hockey stick is not just a representation, which is subject to revision if the underlying data is revised. It is a shape, (supporting a predetermined conclusion) that they will defend to the bitter end. The CSLDF was set up, then subsumed by PEER, primarily to defend the hockey stick, not ‘beleaguered’ science or scientists.
Despite their sometimes comical antics, these guys are not to be dismissed. PEER and its parent organizations are politically motivated and well funded. And this is not the first time that they have orchestrated a media campaign to portray an alarmist-climate scientist as a “vulnerable” victim. Nor are their targets chosen at random. First, a bit more about PEER.
Whitewashing The Dirty Underpants of Truth
I managed to obtain an exclusive interview with Jeff Ruch of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. Actually, NO I didn’t. So I inserted the questions, I would have liked to ask him, in between excerpts taken (in their original order) from an article he wrote in 2000 and one PEER press release.
Hi Jeff, tell me what it is you do at PEER.
We at PEER run a vast information laundromat. Information flows in from … across the country. We then work with the source to scrub source identification from the information, so that there are no “fingerprints.” Sometimes this process takes days, weeks, and months, involving use of tools such as the Freedom of Information Act to obtain a clean or “through the front door” copy of key documents. Once we have a clean, no-fingerprint copy, PEER releases it to the world, generating critical media attention, official investigations, legislative interest, and — most important — agency reexamination of what it is doing (or not doing) now that the agency has been “outed.” This strong dose of sunlight into the agency’s dark corners is usually enough to do the job on the matter at hand.
So you think the anonymity of the person who leaked or hacked the CRU emails should be protected? Some people claim that those emails are private and that their subsequent publication was “malicious and fraudulent”. What’s your take?
PEER’s job is to help the agency’s own internal watchdogs — concerned employees — keep the spotlight on the agency, so managers are always aware that anything taking place within the agency can appear (without fingerprints) on the front page of the newspaper the next day. If that expectation of exposure becomes common, then and only then, will we have planted the seeds of reform.
Global warming is a big issue. The stakes are huge. Skeptics say that political pressure is being applied. But others say that the scientists’ integrity is not affected. What do you think?
On controversial issues, when political pressure is being applied, we find as intense an intellectual and informational repression within the American public agencies as found in totalitarian countries.
Tell me about some of the other important things you do.
To help employees safely serve the law and their conscience, PEER offers the avenue of “anonymous activism.” Symbolic of this approach is the only product PEER sells, other than reports: underwear — boxer shorts carrying the legend “Undercover Activist” on the butt and the PEER logo on the leg.
So, I run an information laundromat and I sell underwear.
I see. Some, and again I won’t mention names, have claimed that the repeated publication of the CRU emails amounts to a campaign of harassment. Is that amount of exposure ever warranted?
If, however, that same manager sees a similar expose every day for a week or a month, his or her accountability muscles get stronger. Once the agency is conditioned to expect that its dirty laundry will routinely be aired, only then is there reform — the agency is conditioned to clean its own wash and do the job the public expects.
Climate skeptics claim that data is being fudged to maximize global warming alarm and they are using FOI laws and legal discovery to confirm this. Should that be allowed? Is that just a fishing expedition?
They lowballed the numbers to minimize the public alarm about the extent and size of this huge disaster. We are confident these documents will justify our concerns and we invite the Interior Department to dispel our concerns by releasing all the documents.
This case will produce Exhibit A in the debate about whether science is still being manipulated under the current administration. Our concern is that the administration took, and is still taking, steps to minimize public perception about the extent and severity … a concern that could be dispelled by releasing these documents.
Ah, I see the problem. You’re talking about the Deepwater Horizon spill back in 2010. This Mann defamation case is so different from your usual M.O. You must be like a fish out of water. Anyway, thanks Jeff. You’ve been most informative
As you can see PEER, which has perhaps issued more FOI requests than anyone else, claims to be a principled organization. However, none of those principles apply when it comes to global warming, because that doesn’t suit their political agenda. After years of sticking it to ‘the man’, this poisonous thorn in the side of the ‘establishment’ is now, as far as “climate change” is concerned, its staunch defender.
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) is only one of several subsidiaries of an older organization -the Government Accountability Project (GAP). Jeff Ruch was a staff attorney for GAP before heading up PEER.
In March 2005, scientist Rick Plitz resigned from the U.S. Global Change Research Program complaining about political interference from the White House.
The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) coordinates and integrates federal research on changes in the global environment and their implications for society. The USGCRP began as a presidential initiative in 1989 and was mandated by Congress in the Global Change Research Act of 1990
During the past two decades, the United States, through the USGCRP, has made the world’s largest scientific investment in the areas of climate change and global change research.
The “interference” in question was the insertion of words such as “significant and fundamental” before words like “uncertainties”. GAP represented Plitz and publicized his case. GAP then set up another subsidiary organization -Climate Science Watch- and installed Plitz as its Director.
The following year it was the turn of James Hansen, Director of NASA’S Goddard Institute for Space Studies, (whose alarmist pronouncements would make even Mann blush) to play the martyr. In January 2006, he claimed that NASA officials were trying to censor him. They weren’t. NASA stated that “government scientists were free to discuss scientific findings, but that policy statements should be left to policy makers and appointed spokesmen”. He was also free to talk about anything on his own time. Hansen didn’t resign, but his soapbox was more secure than ever, now that the idea of ‘government censorship of climate science’ had been firmly planted in the public mind.
Hansen has powerful friends, who claim to be fighting the “politicization of science” but are, in fact, some of the principal ones behind it.
Soros Foundations Network Report 2006
The Open Society Institute and the Soros foundations network spent $417,585,000 in 2006 on improving policy and helping people to live in open, democratic societies.
Scientist Protests NASA’s Censorship Attempts
James E. Hansen, the director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA, protested attempts to silence him after officials at NASA ordered him to refer press inquiries to the public affairs office and required the presence of a public affairs representative at any interview.
The Government Accountability Project, a whistleblower protection organization and OSI grantee, came to Hansen’s defense by providing legal and media advice.
The campaign on Hansen’s behalf resulted in a decision by NASA to revisit its media policy.
Strategic Opportunities Fund 12,824,000
Total U.S. Programs $74,092,000
The Strategic Opportunities Fund includes grants related to Hurricane Katrina ($1,652,841); media policy ($1,060,000); and politicization of science ($720,000).
It is interesting to note that on the same Facebook thread as Anspaugh’s Sandusky comment Mann, in response to a question about funding for his defamation case, revealed that “Expenses are covered on this”. From the context, it does not appear that he was talking about current expenses. Someone has written him a blank cheque to prosecute his defamation case.
Terrorist-deniers put through the wringer
It is also interesting to compare Hansen and Plitz’s claims of White House interference and of being the victims of censorship to what happened in the wake of Climategate, -the release of internal emails from the University of East Anglia’s, Climate Research Unit.
On Dec 4 2009, thirteen days after the release, Courtney Gregoire, Director of Legislative Affairs of the U.S. Department of Commerce, sent out an email that was circulated among key NOOA staff and some prominent climatologists.
All communications on this issue are being coordinated with the White House. Therefore no communications with Hill or Press should go out without DOC [Department of Commerce] coordinating with WH [White House].
When a second batch of emails (Climategate II) was released on November 22 2011, the climate empire was better prepared and struck back. The U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division emailed Automattic Inc., the owner of WordPress (Dec 9).
Pursuant to Title 18, United Sates Code, Section 2703(f), this letter is a formal request for the preservation of all stored communications, records. and other evidence in your possession regarding the following domain name(s) pending further legal process:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com http://noconsensus.wordpress.com and http://climateaudit.org (“the Accounts’) from 00:01 GMT Monday 21 November 2011 to 23:59 GMT Wednesday 23 November 2011.
This request applies to the following items…
Addresses (including mailing addresses, residential addresses, business addresses. and e-mail addresses);
Five days later (Dec 14) British police raided the home of Roger Tattersall, the blogger known as Tallbloke, and confiscated his computers. The police investigating the email breach were liaising with the National Domestic Extremism Team. Even the climate-alarmist Guardian (to their credit) was aghast. They also reported that:
Just as disturbing is the line of questioning by the police of those who made freedom of information requests before the alleged hacking of computers last year. In a letter to the Financial Times, Sebastian Nokes, a climate change sceptic and businessman, said he was interviewed by an officer who “wanted to know what computer I used, my internet service provider, and also to which political parties I have belonged, what I feel about climate change and what my qualifications in climate science are. He questioned me at length about my political and scientific opinions”
‘Exactly what to say’
In the meantime, Andrew Revkin, who had been given the scoop on the “censorship” of Plitz and Hansen, reported the news of Mann’s latest “exoneration”: “Mann Cleared in Final Inquiry by Penn State” (July 1 2010). And linked to a “long friendly interview“.
On the same day that Dr. Michael Mann, a prominent figure in the so-called controversy known as “climategate,” was completely cleared by a Penn State University investigation, he sat down for a short interview with Rick Piltz of GAP’s Climate Science Watch program.
In 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed an “Endangerment Finding for Greenhouse Gases” that would reclassify CO2 as a pollutant, and, in theory, give the EPA wide ranging powers to curb its emission. The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), one of the defendants in Mann’s current defamation case, filed a petition with the EPA to object.
On Oct 8, Rick Plitz emailed climate scientist Tom Wigley, (it was also cc’d to Mike McCracken, a former Director of the USGCRP, the agency Plitz had resigned from, but now Chief Scientist at the Climate Institute).
CEI formal petition to derail EPA GHG endangerment finding with charge that destruction of CRU raw data undermines integrity of global temperature record
I expect that you have already been made aware of the petition to EPA from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (and Pat Michaels) calling for a re-opening of public comment on EPA’s prospective “endangerment” finding on greenhouse gases. CEI is charging that the CRU at East Anglia has destroyed the raw data for a portion of the global temperature record, thus destroying the integrity of the IPCC assessments and any other work that treats the UK Jones-Wigley global temperature data record as scientifically legitimate.
Who is responding to this charge on behalf of the science community? Surely someone will have to, if only because EPA will need to know exactly what to say.
Mann’s lawyers now cite in their complaint, as the first “Exoneration of Dr. Mann”, the EPA’S rejection of CEI’s petition, which perhaps unsurprisingly says exactly what Dr. Mann wanted it to say.
Mislead to succeed
Mann’s lawyers go on to dismiss the allegations of “academic fraud” (as they call them) made in light of the CRU emails.
In response to these accusations, academic institutions and governmental entities alike … found the allegations of academic fraud to be baseless. Every such investigation—and every replication of Dr. Mann’s work—has concluded that Dr. Mann’s research and conclusions were properly conducted and fairly presented.
But one such investigation, the 2010, Muir Russell, Independent Climate Change E-mails Review, commissioned by the University of East Anglia, did not conclude that Mann’s hockey stick was “fairly presented”.
On the allegation that the references in a specific e-mail to a “trick” and to “hide the decline” in respect of a 1999 WMO report figure show evidence of intent to paint a misleading picture, we find that, given its subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the IPCC Third Assessment Report), the figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading.
The “figure” was the hockey stick. That particular version was actually created by Mann’s colleague, Phil Jones, but it employed “Mike’s Nature trick” (i.e. to “hide the decline” of tree-ring proxy based temperatures in the 1980s and 90s).
The language of academic cliques can be a bit dry and restrained. So here are the synonyms of “mislead” listed at Thesaurus.com.
bait, beguile, betray, bilk, bluff, bunk, cheat, cozen, deceive, defraud, delude, double-cross, dupe, enmesh, ensnare, entangle, entice, fool, fudge, gull, hoax, hoodwink, hose, illude, inveigle, juggle, lead astray, lead on, lie, lure, misdirect, misguide, misinform, misrepresent, outwit, overreach, pervert, pull wool over eyes, put on, rip off, rook, rope in, scam, seduce, shaft, snow, take in, tempt, trick, victimize
Think twice before you splice
The Russell report went on to qualify what was meant by “misleading”.
We do not find that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se, or to splice data, but we believe that both of these procedures should have been made plain – ideally in the figure but certainly clearly described in either the caption or the text.
The report specifically refers to data being ‘spliced’, but in an email dated, 18 Jul 2000, Mann denies having done this.
This guy’s email is intentional deceipt. Our method, as you know, doesn’t include any “splicing of two different datasets” -this is a myth perptuated by Singer and his band of hired guns, who haven’t bothered to read our papers or the captions of the figures they like to mis-represent… … This is intentional misrepresentation. For his sake, I hope does not go public w/ such comments!
Incidentally, here is what the “guy” said that Mann didn’t want aired in public “for his sake”.
People attack the ‘hockey stick’ because it is uses an improper procedure to assess inadequate data as a method to provide a desired result. I have defended Mann et al. from accusations of scientific “fraud” because I am willing to accept that this was done in naive stupidity, but I am not willing to accept that is good science. As you say, “people like Mann, Briffa, Jones, etc.” have conducted “careful work”, but doing the wrong thing carefully does not make it right.
The ‘hockey stick’ is obtained by splicing two different data sets. Similar data to the earlier data set exists for up to near the present and could have been spliced on, but this would not show the ‘hockey stick’ and was not done.
Considering that this critic actually defended him against accusations of fraud, a law suit, even from the litigious Mann, seems to be an unlikely outcome of these criticisms being made public, unless Mann wants to sue the authors of the Russell report as well for “intentional deceit” for saying he ‘spliced data’. So what kind of repercussions did Mann imply with the Tony-Soprano-esque phrase “for his sake”?
Manipulate don’t stipulate
Mann’s lawyers also quote from the EPA ruling:
Myth: The University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) emils prove that temperature data and trends were manipulated.
Fact: Not true. … EPA carefully reviewed the CRU mails and found no indication of improper data manipulation or misrepresentation of results.
So the Muir Russell report calls the hockey stick “misleading”, and mislead is a synonym for misrepresent but the EPA says there was no “misrepresentation”. I don’t think there is such a thing as ‘proper misrepresentation’. Muir Russell says Mann spliced data but Mann accuses people who say that of “intentional misrepresentation”. Yet Mann’s lawyers cite Muir Russell as a complete exoneration.
They also complain that Simberg’s assertion that Mann had engaged in “data manipulation” is “defamatory per se”. Well what do Mann’s colleagues have to say?
In order to overcome some of these limitations, a range of techniques has been developed to allow more flexible treatment of the entire cascade of uncertainty. These techniques manipulate or combine different modelling results in a variety of ways.
13.5.2 Approaches for Representing Uncertainties,
IPCC Third Assessment Report, Working Group I: The Scientific Basis
We might need to go for a very small amount of money from DEFRA (to pay Harry or someone just to manipulate palaeo data, and then after implementing the method(s) and deciding on the scheme, run the numerous experiments and synthesize results)
Email from Keith Briffa, 3 Nov 2003 (later forwarded to Michael E. Mann)
The IPCC and Keith Briffa don’t seem to think that the phrase “data manipulation” necessarily implies fraud, let alone “academic fraud” or that it is necessarily a bad thing. But, of course, it can be a bad thing in the wrong hands.
The pseudo borehole results are the so-called ‘optimal’ results of Mann. Mike has never analyzed borehole temperatures; he simply manipulated reconstructions that I sent him, in a manner that dealt with spatial noise in a totally inadequate way. I think it is inappropriate to show the so-called ‘optimal’ reconstruction because it is flawed (even after the correction of gridding errors); the gridded curve should be the one shown in Pollack & Smerdon 2004, not the Briffa and Osborn 2002.
Email from Henry Pollack to Keith Briffa, 13 Jan 2005
‘Our supporters in higher places’
Mann’s legal complaint quotes a passage from a report by the National Science Foundation:
Although [Dr. Mann’s] data is still available and still the focus of significant critical examination, no direct evidence has been presented that indicates [Dr. Mann] fabricated the raw data he used for his research or falsified his results.
Fine, none of the plaintiffs accused Mann of “fabricating” or “falsifying” data. Fraud is not limited to those two acts. It is often a matter of which and how data is displayed -represented or misrepresented. The complaint goes on to quote more from the NSF report.
Much of the current debate focuses on the viability of the statistical procedures he employed, the statistics used to confirm the accuracy of the results, and the degree to which one specific set of data impacts the statistical results. These concerns are all appropriate for scientific debate …
The two men who focused on the “viability of the statistical procedures” employed by Mann are Canadians, Stephen McIntyre, a mathematician, and founder of the web site Climate Audit, and Ross McKitrick, an economist. They are generally referred to as MM in the Climategate emails. It is McIntyre and McKitrick who raised the concerns that are “appropriate for scientific debate”. How did Mann initially address those appropriate concerns?
This guy “McIntyre” appears to be yet another shill for industry
Michael E. Mann, 19 Oct 2003
If *others* want to say that their actions represent scientific fraud, intellectual dishonesty, etc. (as I think we all suspect they do), lets let *them* make these charges for us!
Lets let our supporters in higher places use our scientific response to push the broader case against MM.
Michael E. Mann, 31 Oct 2003
I would immediately delete anything you receive from this fraud.
You’ve probably seen now the paper by Wahl and Ammann which independently exposes McIntyre and McKitrick for what it is–pure crap.
Michael E. Mann to Phil Jones, 30 Dec 2004
The McIntyre and McKitrick paper is pure scientific fraud.
Michael E. Mann to Andy Revkin, 04 Feb 2005
I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre, and his thusfar unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests. Perhaps the same needs to be done w/ this Keenan guy.
Michael E. Mann to Phil Jones, Aug 29 2007
Yet Mann’s lawyers assert that:
…these emails reflected only the commonplace and legitimate give and take of academic debate and inquiry.
So, according to Mann’s lawyers calling someone, with appropriate concerns about your work, a “fraud”; calling their work “pure scientific fraud” and encouraging others, including “supporters in higher places” to publicly “say that their actions represent scientific fraud” and “intellectual dishonesty” and setting investigators on them to snoop into their private affairs, is all just “the commonplace and legitimate give and take of academic debate and inquiry”.
Despite Mann’s best underhand efforts, McIntyre’s “fossil fuel interest” remains “thusfar” undiscovered. Does it make your work less fraudulent or more fraudulent to be forced to issue a corrigendum by a work of “pure scientific fraud”? At least McIntyre, McKitrick, Steyn, Simberg, etc. have the guts to direct their criticism openly towards their opponents, and not hide behind “supporters in higher places”, like a jackal waiting for someone else to make the kill.
The cowboys of climate science
Mann et al do not want you to hear skeptical views or to read the CRU emails. Let’s look at what you can learn from one short thread, from five days in October 2009. On the 9th of that month, this article appeared on the BBC News website.
What happened to global warming?
By Paul Hudson, Climate correspondent
This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.
But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.
And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.
Two days after the article was posted, Narasimha D. Rao emailed Stephen H. Schneider. Independent thinking at 4 o’clock!
You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBCs reporter on climate change, on Friday wrote that theres been no warming since 1998, and that pacific oscillations will force cooling for the next 20-30 years. It is not outrageously biased in presentation as are other skeptics views.
Schneider then alerts the rest of the “team”that a maverick had gone astray from the herd.
Hi all. Any of you want to explain … to this new “IPCC Lead Author” from the BBC? … the past 10 years of global mean temperature trend stasis
Michael Mann, disappointed that a member of the otherwise compliant media should speak freely and honestly, starts to swing his lasoo, to yippee ki-yay another sucker.
extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.
We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what’s up here?
But Kevin Trenberth sticks his head out of the swirling dust and confusion of the herd’s scientific ‘construct’ (or delusion bubble) to take a peek at reality and realizes that Paul Hudson has a point.
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.
Mann then reassures everyone that he can fix everything with yet another chart (which turns out to be a rehash of an earlier one created to counter climate-skeptic Lord Moncktons “deliberate manipulation”).
I’ve taken the liberty of attaching a figure that Gavin put together the other day (its an update from a similar figure he prepared for an earlier RealClimate post. see: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-deliberate-manipulation/
It is indeed worth a thousand words …
However, Tom Wigley didn’t need “a thousand words” to capture the essence of Mann and Gavin Schmidt’s latest effort, just two.
Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive. As an example, historical runs with PCM look as though they match observations — but the match is a fluke. PCM has no indirect aerosol forcing and a low climate sensitivity — compensating errors. In my (perhaps too harsh) view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC.
So in one email thread conducted over the space of five days we see “the team” colluding to stifle free speech by the press, admitting that a number of the the IPCC’s representations are “dishonest” and admitting privately what they won’t admit publicly -global warming has stopped and they can’t explain why.
‘Toward the north, where shivering cold and sickness pines the clime’
So why did the BBC allow a skeptic to express himself on their main website pages? Well, two years previously, Paul Hudson was saying things like this.
What was once science fiction is now in my opinion a fact. I have been watching our weather for the last 15 years. I have seen what the future holds – and it is not looking good.
The powers that be at “the objective impartial (ho ho) BBC” must have thought Hudson was a on the “team”, but two more years of unchanging global climate changed him. And what happened to him, after the 2009 article? The double-dealing, doubting, turncoat was banished back to the obscurity of Yorkshire from whence he came, to peddle his skepticism, scruples and scientific integrity to the yokels. At least he wasn’t hog-tied and branded first.
End of Part 2.
P.S. The concluding part will try to answer the question ‘is the hockey stick fraudulent’ and the question in the title.
Update 17 January: Amended to address points made by commenter hro001.