Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[steenkh]

Mann being convicted of fraud would be one of the worst things to happen to science in a long time. It's not something anyone wishes for.

Well, somebody do, or they would not have sued him. The gleeful anticipation you display here also seems to indicate that you wish him to be convicted.

If he was found to have manipulated the data it would call into question the state of the science whereby "peer review" and other research projects could confirm such manipulations.
The implications are pretty obvious, I don't think they're necessarily as nefarious as you may believe.

So the science is less important for you deniers than the opportunity to kill off research projects that you do not like? Actually, I find it quite nefarious.

 

[Gwynpaine]

RICHARD LINDZEN; bad and dangerous to know, but not mad

Oops. "MADZEN" was not an attempt at puerile humour but a slip. Perhaps my subconscious got the better of me

Lindzen seems to me a completetly untrustworthy character, but he is a real climate scientist and would not have made a simple peak-to-trough error. There can be many measures of the average globale temperature anomaly. Somewhere there is a graph. I expect his supporters to find it for us.

 

[Reality Check]

This is a non sequitur.

It is the difference between a fishing expedition designed to harrass someone and a legitimate request for documents based on a good foundation.

You asserted that the ATI were asking for the information because they though that Mann had fudged his data in order to get more funding.
If they knew anything about climate science then they would know that Mann's results have been confirmed by other researchers.
What evidence is there for the hockey stick?

This is as well. Literally.

That was a question. Literally.

Where are the requests for Wahl & Ammann correspondence about their tax payer-funded research, Furcifer?
Can you smell harrasment of Mann ?
​

I do include a smiley but there is an actual question there. ATI are only asking for Mann's personal corresponse. If they had a real concern about funding then they should also be asking for the Wahl & Ammann correspondence. Since they are not the implication is that this is harrassment of Mann.

If they're harassing the poor fellow then he should sue.

Unfortunately they are legally harassing him.
The only entity that could sue would be the UVA and I doubt that they have any standing under the VA FOIA.

 

[Reality Check]

Lindzen seems to me a completetly untrustworthy character, but he is a real climate scientist and would not have made a simple peak-to-trough error.

Lindzen is a real climate scientist and did make "a simple peak-to-trough error".
He just has an unsupported assertion:

The IPCC claim that most of the recent warming (since the 1950s) is due to man assumed that current models adequately accounted for natural internal variability. The failure of these models to anticipate the fact that there has been no statistically significant warming for the past 14 years or so contradicts this assumption. This has been acknowledged by major modeling groups in England and Germany

Any competent scientist would have cited those "major modeling groups".
The fact is that the model predictions have matched the global temperatures and did anticipate the trend for the past 14 years.
It is a basic statistical fact that no trend is statistically significant over any 14 year period.

The internal variability bit is one of his pet ideas: Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability

 

[Trakar]

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for moderated thread.

Mann being convicted of fraud would be one of the worst things to happen to science in a long time...

Mann enjoined a lawsuit concerning the University rejection of a FOIA request, he isn't on trial for fraud. There seems to be more than a little confusion of issues and perhaps just a bit of imaginative well-poisoning going on here.

 

[Trakar]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...honor-oeschger-medal-awarded-to-michael-mann/

Cudos Dr. Mann!

(for those eschewing blog info, try: http://www.egu.eu/awards-medals/award/hans-oeschger/2012/michael-mann.html )

European Geosciences Union
Dedicated to the pursuit of excellence in the geosciences and the planetary
and space sciences for the benefit of humanity.

The 2012 Hans Oeschger Medal is awarded to Michael Mann for his significant contributions to understanding decadal-centennial scale climate change over the last two millennia and for pioneering techniques to synthesize patterns and northern hemispheric time series of past climate using proxy data reconstructions.

Michael Mann obtained his PhD from Yale University and is Professor of Meteorology at the Pennsylvania State University. Mann deserves the award on the basis of his important contributions to the understanding of climate change over the last two millennia but also for pioneering statistical techniques for isolating climate signals in noisy data. He has chosen to work primarily in paleoclimate, but he has a strong mathematical and statistical background. Together, these strengths have made him a leader in his field...

...Mann exemplifies the courage that Oeschger hoped scientists should have, another reason for him to deserve the Oeschger Medal. Mann has published seminal papers in top journals and his publication record is outstanding for a scientist of his relatively young age (10 articles in the 3 top journals: Nature, Science, PNAS)

Well deserved honors and recognition by the climate science community.

 

[Trakar]

It doesn't matter if it's a fishing expedition or not, the FIOA doesn't make that distinction.

Actually, it does make many distinctions, depending on the wording of the individual acts in various countries. The current ATI case wouldn't have ever got off the ground in Canada as citizen's are only allowed to request government records.

In the US we have a mix of federal and state statutes. the ATI case revolves around Virginia State FOIA not federal FOIA which applies only to federal agencies. In the case of the Virginia FOIA law (http://www.opengovva.org/virginias-foia-the-law), I'm not sure why this case is even being heard:

..."Public records" means all writings and recordings that consist of letters, words or numbers, or their equivalent, set down by handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostatting, photography, magnetic impulse, optical or magneto-optical form, mechanical or electronic recording or other form of data compilation, however stored, and regardless of physical form or characteristics, prepared or owned by, or in the possession of a public body or its officers, employees or agents in the transaction of public business. Records that are not prepared for or used in the transaction of public business are not public records...

I don't see how Mann's private emails to other researchers are "public records." Likewise they seem specifically exempt under Virginia's FOIA explicit information exemptions section.

 

[lomiller]

Nonsense. You're confusing global warming with anthropogenic emissions and AGW. Deliberately.

Ok then tell us what the italics are supposed to mean. I asked you what they meant in your post and your responded "nonsense", now you say that isn’t what you meant. All I want to know is what you were trying to convey by putting the word “some” in your post when your wrote that ” some scientific studies showing causation as a direct result of anthropogenic emissions”. Are you going to answer this question or not?

You're confusing global warming with anthropogenic emissions and AGW. Deliberately.

What are you talking about? There is no room for confusion here. The temperature record shows warming began ~100 year ago and consists of two periods where there was a strong warming trend. Attribution studies show that the first period of 1900 - ~1935 is about an even mix of anthropogenic and natural forcing and that the second, from ~1970 onward is almost entirely due to anthropogenic sources.

What “confusion” are you claiming exists in this? These are facts, nothing more nothing less.

 

[lomiller]

Actually, it does make many distinctions, depending on the wording of the individual acts in various countries. The current ATI case wouldn't have ever got off the ground in Canada as citizen's are only allowed to request government records.

That’s a little fuzzy. An e-mail is a government record and should be treated as such. This includes giving it a destruction schedule. Since e-mails are almost all working documents their destruction schedule is “after you are done working with it”, but it could conceivably get a “retain for 2 years”, “retain for 7 years” or something in between. If it’s considered historically important it could become part of a permanent archive.

The retention schedule would be based on the contents, but only if it’s a final version of something official. I.E. if you were giving an official response to a question from some other branch of government, it could get retention schedule and be preserved for up to 7 years and be subject to FOI requests until it’s destroyed.

 

[Furcifer]

Actually, it does make many distinctions, depending on the wording of the individual acts in various countries. The current ATI case wouldn't have ever got off the ground in Canada as citizen's are only allowed to request government records.

It does, but nothing about motivation for making the request. This is just handwaving.

For government funded projects in Canada there are many regulations that make FOI requests redundant because they must be publically disclosed anyways.

I don't see how Mann's private emails to other researchers are "public records." Likewise they seem specifically exempt under Virginia's FOIA explicit information exemptions section.

If the emails are about research that is publically funded them they are part of the research. If they were written on computers that were paid for by the taxpayer then they could be considered public property. If they were written while he was being paid by the taxpayer to do work, then they are his work and thus subject to being made public.

Let me clarify, these are some of the considerations being made. I don't necessarily agree with them, but let's be honest we can "see how" these might be considered "public information".

 

[Furcifer]

Mann enjoined a lawsuit concerning the University rejection of a FOIA request, he isn't on trial for fraud. There seems to be more than a little confusion of issues and perhaps just a bit of imaginative well-poisoning going on here.

Nonsense. Mann was on trial and fraud was what they were aiming for. The case was dismissed because the evidence was protected.

The AG believes the emails might show Mann was lying in order to secure government grants. If the emails were disclosed and it was shown he did lie in order to secure funds he'd be charged with defrauding the government.

I don't believe that myself. I think at worst he unknowingly made errors that led to some confirmation bias, but lie, no.

 

[Furcifer]

Well, somebody do, or they would not have sued him. The gleeful anticipation you display here also seems to indicate that you wish him to be convicted.

No, I just find the claims that someone has been "vindicated" before the jury is out to be typical of the lack of critical thinking surrounding AGW.

So the science is less important for you deniers than the opportunity to kill off research projects that you do not like? Actually, I find it quite nefarious.

As do most warmists. They tend to have religious like fanaticism when anything they believe in is challenged.

 

[Reality Check]

Nonsense. Mann was on trial and fraud was what they were aiming for. The case was dismissed because the evidence was protected.

Timeline: Legal Harassment of Climate Scientist Michael Mann
There was no such trial of Mann. The data was not protected. You need to get your facts straight.

There was the civil investigative demands (CID) case brought by Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli against the University of Virginia under the Fraud Against Taxpayers Act (FATA) to get access to Mann's personal correspondence. He was refused because the UVA is not a person as defined under FATA.

That was definitely a fishing expedition designed to harass Mann since Ken Cuccinelli wasted tax-payer dollars on a case based on his fantasy that there was fraud. That fantasy seems to be based on the Climate-gate emails: State attorney general demands ex-professor's files from University of Virginia

"In light of the Climate-gate e-mails, there does seem to at least be an argument to be made that a course was undertaken by some of the individuals involved, including potentially Michael Mann, where they were steering a course to reach a conclusion," he said. "Our act, frankly, just requires honesty."

So Ken Cuccinelli thought that the email describing a trick in graphing results was fraud !

Ken Cuccinelli did not cease wasting tax-payer money even when investigations of the Climate-gate emails cleared Mann of any wrongdoing. That implies harassment.

 

[CapelDodger]

Nonsense. Mann was on trial and fraud was what they were aiming for.

Mann has never been on trial, yet here you are saying that he was. Why is that, do you think?

What the vexatious litigation is aimed at is just what it has struck in you - the belief (or perhaps strengthened belief) that Mann is a dubious character. He gets involved in court-cases not of his instigation, he has to hire lawyers, and he insists on keeping his private correspondence private. In your somewhat fuzzy mind this coalesces into "he got off on a technicality".

The better part of three pages on this since you brought it up. That's probably normal on the blogs you normally frequent, but it really isn't in the big world.

The case was dismissed because the evidence was protected.

Got off on a technicality. Bloody activist judges, eh?

The AG believes the emails might show Mann was lying in order to secure government grants.

Cuccinelli's aiming at the governership, and he knows how to get the Tea Party on his side - attack Mann (the lynch-pin of the whole hoax as far as they're concerned) while making loud noises about AGW being a fraud. He won't go short of coal-money for his run either.

There is no reason to think that the research grant in question is any different from others granted by UVA, and all the relevant documents are available. No sign of fraud. Nada. Zip. Bugger-all. That's why they're going for the private correspondence.

What's special is that it has Mann's name on it (the bete-noire of the denialist cult) and was made in Virginia, where Cuccinelli's writ runs.

If the emails were disclosed and it was shown he did lie in order to secure funds he'd be charged with defrauding the government.

As the Spartans said, "If ..."

I don't believe that myself.

Heaven forbid any should even suggest that you brought it up because you believed in it.

I think at worst he unknowingly made errors that led to some confirmation bias, but lie, no.

It's bias that might lead to errors, not vice versa. You have a very disorganised mind; you might to work on that.

You imagine there might be errors in the Mann et al reconstruction (known as the Hockey-Stick) and you imagine these would be ignored because of confirmation bias. Notice that : because of the confirmation, not leading to it. You imagine the same mistakes have been made in all credible reconstructions made since then, and haven't been found. That's quite some imagination.

The weird world of denial is still trying to break that old Hockey-Stick, and since they can't do it with data and maths they've turned to demonising the lead author. (If that reminds you of lawyers there's a good reason for it.) On the one hand you have scientists such as Mann and his appreciative colleagues and on the other you have politicians, lawyers and lobbyists. Of course the deniers have taken it to the courts, it's the only arena they have an advantage in. Well, that and the media. And politics. Actually, anywhere that money talks louder than evidence.

The Cuccinelli case brings it all together very elegantly. A politician and a well-funded lobby-tank use the courts to get media coverage and free electioneering while smearing climate science in the pedestrian public mind. It could become a case-study in days to come.

 

[CapelDodger]

What are you talking about? There is no room for confusion here. The temperature record shows warming began ~100 year ago and consists of two periods where there was a strong warming trend. Attribution studies show that the first period of 1900 - ~1935 is about an even mix of anthropogenic and natural forcing and that the second, from ~1970 onward is almost entirely due to anthropogenic sources.

What “confusion” are you claiming exists in this? These are facts, nothing more nothing less.

Until some evidence is provided that Mann made it up, of course .

The fall-off in volcanic activity since 1910 is undeniable, which goes a long way towards explaining the early 20thCE warming. It's been quiet for a while now. Too damn' quiet ...

The right kind of eruption could give denialism a whole new lease of life.

 

[Trakar]

That’s a little fuzzy. An e-mail is a government record and should be treated as such...

Not according to the Virginia FOIA law, specificially the section that I quoted.

 

[Trakar]

...Let me clarify, these are some of the considerations being made. I don't necessarily agree with them, but let's be honest we can "see how" these might be considered "public information".

Not according to Virginia FOIA statute.

 

[Furcifer]

Mann has never been on trial, yet here you are saying that he was. Why is that, do you think?

The state was going after the University to get Mann's emails in order to determine if fraud was committed. If you don't think Mann was on trial here I suppose that's technically correct. It's woefully naive though.

 

[Furcifer]

There was no such trial of Mann. The data was not protected. You need to get your facts straight.

No because it was shot down early on.

There was the civil investigative demands (CID) case brought by Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli against the University of Virginia under the Fraud Against Taxpayers Act (FATA) to get access to Mann's personal correspondence. He was refused because the UVA is not a person as defined under FATA.

lol and therefore protected from FOI requests. The data was protected, you're wrong.

That was definitely a fishing expedition designed to harass Mann since Ken Cuccinelli wasted tax-payer dollars on a case based on his fantasy that there was fraud. That fantasy seems to be based on the Climate-gate emails: State attorney general demands ex-professor's files from University of Virginia

So Ken Cuccinelli thought that the email describing a trick in graphing results was fraud !

Ken Cuccinelli did not cease wasting tax-payer money even when investigations of the Climate-gate emails cleared Mann of any wrongdoing. That implies harassment.

Nonsense. That's like saying OJ was cleared of any wrongdoing. They don't have a case against Mann, that's entirely different from being cleared of any wrongdoing.

 

[Kestrel]

Until some evidence is provided that Mann made it up, of course .

The fall-off in volcanic activity since 1910 is undeniable, which goes a long way towards explaining the early 20thCE warming. It's been quiet for a while now. Too damn' quiet ...

The right kind of eruption could give denialism a whole new lease of life.

This is an alternative solution to the global warming problem. Develop technology to trigger massive volcanic eruptions and create an upper atmosphere haze covering the entire planet. Solar energy reaching the surface drops and counteracts the CO₂ forcing from burning fossil fuels.