assault on science

[konradv]

To-MAY-to, To-MAH-to. This is less about my accuracy than it is the desire of some to cloud the issues for political rather than scientific gain.

 

[Si modo]

Reality is not your strong suit, Si.

....

I would suppose that your illogical attempt at a swipe is based on my daring to ensure accuracy from another who is discussing something irrelevant.

And, that means there is a lack of reality on my part, according to you.

 

[IanC]

Mann-How can I assure young researchers in climate science that if they make a breakthrough in our understanding about how human activity is altering our climate that they, too, will not be dragged through a show trial at a congressional hearing?

How can you assure them? It’s very simple. Dr. Mann, do you think you were picked at random to testify at a Congressional hearing? If you want to assure young researchers that they will not be dragged in front of Congress, tell them not to do the things you have done.

Tell them not to hide adverse results in a folder marked “BACKTO_1400-CENSORED“. Tell them not to make stupid mathematical mistakes and then refuse to show their work. Tell them not to hang around with people who delete emails that are the subject of a Freedom of Information act. Tell them not to subvert the IPCC process to advance their point of view.

And above all, tell them to be open about their data and their work. Why is it so hard for you to understand and practice this most basic of scientific tenets, total transparency and openness? You got hauled before Congress, not because of your scientific views, but because you tried to con people with your bogus math and bad proxies. And when we didn’t buy it, when we asked how you got your results, you refused to explain your methods, claiming it was “intimidation” to even ask, so we should just take it on faith that you were right …

Tell your students that scientists who do those things may have to face either the consequences, or Congress, or both …

An Open Letter to Dr. Michael Mann | Watts Up With That?

"do you think you were picked at random to testify at a Congressional hearing?". hahaha, that's pretty funny

 

[Si modo]

To-MAY-to, To-MAH-to. This is less about my accuracy than it is the desire of some to cloud the issues for political rather than scientific gain.

See, for those who are scientists, accuracy of terms is rather important.

So, hopefully you've learned something.

 

[konradv]

Reality is not your strong suit, Si.

....

I would suppose that your illogical attempt at a swipe is based on my daring to ensure accuracy from another who is discussing something irrelevant.

And, that means there is a lack of reality on my part, according to you.

Insuring accuracy?!?! More like, trying to cloud the issues. My comments aren't irrelevant, they're pointing out a pattern.

 

[Si modo]

Reality is not your strong suit, Si.

....

I would suppose that your illogical attempt at a swipe is based on my daring to ensure accuracy from another who is discussing something irrelevant.

And, that means there is a lack of reality on my part, according to you.

Insuring accuracy?!?! More like, trying to cloud the issues. My comments aren't irrelevant, they're pointing out a pattern.

When you make comments that are based in inaccuracy, yes - you're being irrelevant.

Such it up and learn something for once.

 

[Old Rocks]

Mann-How can I assure young researchers in climate science that if they make a breakthrough in our understanding about how human activity is altering our climate that they, too, will not be dragged through a show trial at a congressional hearing?

How can you assure them? It’s very simple. Dr. Mann, do you think you were picked at random to testify at a Congressional hearing? If you want to assure young researchers that they will not be dragged in front of Congress, tell them not to do the things you have done.

Tell them not to hide adverse results in a folder marked “BACKTO_1400-CENSORED“. Tell them not to make stupid mathematical mistakes and then refuse to show their work. Tell them not to hang around with people who delete emails that are the subject of a Freedom of Information act. Tell them not to subvert the IPCC process to advance their point of view.

And above all, tell them to be open about their data and their work. Why is it so hard for you to understand and practice this most basic of scientific tenets, total transparency and openness? You got hauled before Congress, not because of your scientific views, but because you tried to con people with your bogus math and bad proxies. And when we didn’t buy it, when we asked how you got your results, you refused to explain your methods, claiming it was “intimidation” to even ask, so we should just take it on faith that you were right …

Tell your students that scientists who do those things may have to face either the consequences, or Congress, or both …

An Open Letter to Dr. Michael Mann | Watts Up With That?

"do you think you were picked at random to testify at a Congressional hearing?". hahaha, that's pretty funny

A liar posting the writings of a liar.

Willis Eschenbach caught lying about temperature trends : Deltoid

Willis Eschenbach caught lying about temperature trends
Category: Global Warming
Posted on: December 9, 2009 2:21 PM, by Tim Lambert

Remember how the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition made the warming trend in New Zealand go away by treating measurements from different sites as if they came from the same site? Well, Willis Eschenbach has followed in their foot steps by using the same scam on Australian data. He claims that for Darwin "the trend has been artificially increased to give a false warming where the raw data shows cooling". Here's his graph:

 

[IanC]

Mann-How can I assure young researchers in climate science that if they make a breakthrough in our understanding about how human activity is altering our climate that they, too, will not be dragged through a show trial at a congressional hearing?

How can you assure them? It’s very simple. Dr. Mann, do you think you were picked at random to testify at a Congressional hearing? If you want to assure young researchers that they will not be dragged in front of Congress, tell them not to do the things you have done.

Tell them not to hide adverse results in a folder marked “BACKTO_1400-CENSORED“. Tell them not to make stupid mathematical mistakes and then refuse to show their work. Tell them not to hang around with people who delete emails that are the subject of a Freedom of Information act. Tell them not to subvert the IPCC process to advance their point of view.

And above all, tell them to be open about their data and their work. Why is it so hard for you to understand and practice this most basic of scientific tenets, total transparency and openness? You got hauled before Congress, not because of your scientific views, but because you tried to con people with your bogus math and bad proxies. And when we didn’t buy it, when we asked how you got your results, you refused to explain your methods, claiming it was “intimidation” to even ask, so we should just take it on faith that you were right …

Tell your students that scientists who do those things may have to face either the consequences, or Congress, or both …

An Open Letter to Dr. Michael Mann | Watts Up With That?

"do you think you were picked at random to testify at a Congressional hearing?". hahaha, that's pretty funny

A liar posting the writings of a liar.

Willis Eschenbach caught lying about temperature trends : Deltoid

Willis Eschenbach caught lying about temperature trends
Category: Global Warming
Posted on: December 9, 2009 2:21 PM, by Tim Lambert

Remember how the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition made the warming trend in New Zealand go away by treating measurements from different sites as if they came from the same site? Well, Willis Eschenbach has followed in their foot steps by using the same scam on Australian data. He claims that for Darwin "the trend has been artificially increased to give a false warming where the raw data shows cooling". Here's his graph:

Are you saying that Eschenbach lied in his letter repudiating Mann's Op-Ed whine or are you trying to misdirect the attention away from Mann's disgrace?

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Protecting frauds is not protecting science. One could even argue that protecting deliberate fraudsters is anti science.

 

[Si modo]

Protecting frauds is not protecting science. One could even argue that protecting deliberate fraudsters is anti science.

Absolutely.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

And Dr. Mann is to Climate science what Dillinger was to Banking.

 

[Sallow]

Michael E. Mann - Get the anti-science bent out of politics

As a scientist, I shouldn't have a stake in the upcoming midterm elections, but unfortunately, it seems that I -- and indeed all my fellow climate scientists -- do.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) has threatened that, if he becomes chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, he will launch what would be a hostile investigation of climate science. The focus would be on e-mails stolen from scientists at the University of East Anglia in Britain last fall that climate-change deniers have falsely claimed demonstrate wrongdoing by scientists, including me. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) may do the same if he takes over a committee on climate change and energy security.

My employer, Penn State University, exonerated me after a thorough investigation of my e-mails in the East Anglia archive. Five independent investigations in Britain and the United States, and a thorough recent review by the Environmental Protection Agency, also have cleared the scientists of accusations of impropriety.

Nonetheless, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is investigating my previous employer, the University of Virginia, based on the stolen e-mails. A judge rejected his initial subpoena, finding that Cuccinelli had failed to provide objective evidence of wrongdoing. Undeterred, Cuccinelli appealed the decision to the Virginia Supreme Court and this week issued a new civil subpoena.

What could Issa, Sensenbrenner and Cuccinelli possibly think they might uncover now, a year after the e-mails were published?

The truth is that they don't expect to uncover anything. Instead, they want to continue a 20-year assault on climate research, questioning basic science and promoting doubt where there is none.

Issa's a tool. He wants to go crazy with investigations. Not into just this..he wants to go on a fishing expedition against President Obama.

 

[daveman]

Mann-How can I assure young researchers in climate science that if they make a breakthrough in our understanding about how human activity is altering our climate that they, too, will not be dragged through a show trial at a congressional hearing?

How can you assure them? It’s very simple. Dr. Mann, do you think you were picked at random to testify at a Congressional hearing? If you want to assure young researchers that they will not be dragged in front of Congress, tell them not to do the things you have done.

Tell them not to hide adverse results in a folder marked “BACKTO_1400-CENSORED“. Tell them not to make stupid mathematical mistakes and then refuse to show their work. Tell them not to hang around with people who delete emails that are the subject of a Freedom of Information act. Tell them not to subvert the IPCC process to advance their point of view.

And above all, tell them to be open about their data and their work. Why is it so hard for you to understand and practice this most basic of scientific tenets, total transparency and openness? You got hauled before Congress, not because of your scientific views, but because you tried to con people with your bogus math and bad proxies. And when we didn’t buy it, when we asked how you got your results, you refused to explain your methods, claiming it was “intimidation” to even ask, so we should just take it on faith that you were right …

Tell your students that scientists who do those things may have to face either the consequences, or Congress, or both …

An Open Letter to Dr. Michael Mann | Watts Up With That?

"do you think you were picked at random to testify at a Congressional hearing?". hahaha, that's pretty funny

"...if they make a breakthrough in our understanding about how human activity is altering our climate..."
Mann's got his mind made up.

I thought he was a scientist. Scientists are supposed to be able to abandon their hypothesis when required.

Like I said: He's in it for the money.

 

[rdean]

People that believe in "magical creation" have the best understanding of science, obviously.

 

[westwall]

People that believe in "magical creation" have the best understanding of science, obviously.

A more accurate description of climate science would be hard to write, good job.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Mann speaking for Climate scientists is like OJ doing a knife commercial

Sure, Mike, sure

 

[IanC]

An Open Letter to Dr. Michael Mann | Watts Up With That?

"do you think you were picked at random to testify at a Congressional hearing?". hahaha, that's pretty funny

A liar posting the writings of a liar.

Willis Eschenbach caught lying about temperature trends : Deltoid

Willis Eschenbach caught lying about temperature trends
Category: Global Warming
Posted on: December 9, 2009 2:21 PM, by Tim Lambert

Remember how the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition made the warming trend in New Zealand go away by treating measurements from different sites as if they came from the same site? Well, Willis Eschenbach has followed in their foot steps by using the same scam on Australian data. He claims that for Darwin "the trend has been artificially increased to give a false warming where the raw data shows cooling". Here's his graph:

Are you saying that Eschenbach lied in his letter repudiating Mann's Op-Ed whine or are you trying to misdirect the attention away from Mann's disgrace?

OK Old Rocks, you don't seem to want to expose the lies in the letter (or explore the fraud in Australia's temperature reporting) so let's look at another piece of the letter.

Mann said-What could Issa, Sensenbrenner and Cuccinelli possibly think they might uncover now, a year after the e-mails were published?
Well, they might uncover the truth contained in the emails that haven’t been published. For example, you stand accused of conspiring to delete emails that showed you and your friends trying to prevent IPCC Review Comments from being made public.

Did you delete those emails? We may never know, since your good buddies in the “thorough investigation” DIDN’T EVEN LOOK TO SEE IF THE ACCUSATION WAS TRUE. They never looked through either your emails, or the CRU emails, to see if you had deleted emails as you were asked to do by Phil Jones. They never looked for your answer to Gene.

As you may not want to recall, in the Climategate emails, Phil wrote to you about the AR4 review emails, as follows:

Phil Jones wrote:

Mike,

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene [Wahl] and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!

Cheers

Phil

Those emails, Dr. Mann, were the subject of a Freedom of Information Act request. You replied:

Hi Phil,

laughable that CA would claim to have discovered the problem. They would have run off to the Wall Street Journal for an exclusive were that to have been true.

I’ll contact Gene [Wahl] about this ASAP. His new email is: [email protected]

talk to you later,

mike

Now you may have a reasonable innocuous explanation for that interchange. I don’t see one. I see Phil advising you to break the law and delete emails that were the subject of an FOI request, and you saying “I’ll contact Gene about this ASAP”. When your friends were doing their “thorough investigation”, it is curious that they NEVER ASKED TO SEE the other emails in the chain. Like for example the email you said you would send to Gene to tell him to delete the emails. Did you send it?

And did you delete your emails? The “thorough investigation” never investigated that either, they didn’t even try to answer that important question.

So please don’t give us your sanctimonious posing as though you were shown to be innocent. The “thorough investigations” run by your friends have not determined your innocence, or the lack thereof – since they haven’t even tried to look at the evidence, how could they determine anything? So the jury is still out on the question.

But the facts we do have do not look good for you in the slightest.

If you had any actual evidence that you were innocent, I’m sure you would have given it to the investigators … funny how none of the five investigations have come up with a single fact or email or document to exonerate you in this question. As far as we know, you didn’t write back to Phil later and say something like “I can’t delete emails, that would be unethical and possibly illegal”. You wrote back to say that you would pass on the email deletion order to Gene … and you want us to believe that your hands are clean? Sorry, my friend, I’m like the Red Queen, I can believe six impossible things before breakfast, but that one is just too big to swallow.

Any thoughts about how your inquiries managed to miss so many facets of the climategate emails Old Rocks?

 

[IanC]

more on the Penn investigation, oops I mean inquiry on Mann

They asked him to provide them emails? They asked him to assemble and send them the evidence against himself?

He works for Penn State. The ownership of the emails is theirs. They are investigating him. The very, very first thing that is done in an investigation of this sort is to do an email dump of the subject of the investigation. Then the investigators go through to see what they can find.

THEY ASKED MANN TO ASSEMBLE THE EMAIL EVIDENCE AGAINST HIMSELF!!! I know I’m shouting and that’s impolite, but it needs to be shouted. If any one thing about this Inquiry characterizes the bumbling incompetence of the Inquirers, surely it is that single fact — that they let him pick and choose the evidence to be used against him. I mean, you could stop right there and go home knowing all you need to know about the quality and impartiality of the Inquiry.

But as tempting as going home might be at this point, the report continues, and so perforce we also must continue along the weary trail of their tortured caricature of an inquiry. However, as we proceed, remember that they asked him to assemble the evidence against himself. I’d heard stories that professors were out of touch with the real world, but c’mon, folks, don’t professors watch cop shows once in a while? That’s bozo level Investigation 101. Do an email dump of his machine and the email server, then compare the emails that were deleted from his computer to the emails that remain in the server.

But nooooo, he’s their esteemed colleague, that would be unseemly, so they politely asked him to send them the email evidence showing whether he had deleted emails or done anything else underhanded … words fail me.

After their killer hard-hitting look at the email question, and their collegiate discussion with their esteemed colleague, what did they look into next? The Penn State clown car careens on to the next step in their relentless inquiry, as shown by the next paragraph:

On January 22, 2010, the inquiry committee and Dr. Brune met again to review the evidence, including but not limited to Dr. Mann’s answers to the committee’s questions, both in the interview and in his subsequent submissions. All were impressed by Dr. Mann’s composure and his forthright responses to all of the queries that were asked of him. At this point, Dr. Foley reviewed the relevant points of his conversation with Dr. Gerald North, a professor at Texas A&M University and the first author of the NAS’ 2006 report on Dr. Mann’s research on paleoclimatology. Dr. Foley also relayed the sentiment and view of Dr. Donald Kennedy of Stanford University and the former editor of Science Magazine about the controversy currently swirling around Dr. Mann and some of his colleagues. Both were very supportive of Dr. Mann and of the credibility of his science.

Just kidding about the relentless inquiry, that was it. Four days after getting the emails from Mann, the party was over. At that point, looking for evidence was passé. All relevant questions had been asked. They were finished with the inquiry part, no more evidence collection, that was it, time to examine the collected evidence.

The above paragraph says that with the inquiry safely behind them and all relevant evidence gathered, they met to consider that evidence. Bear in mind that the totality of the evidence that they report being collected by their inquiry was:

1. Mann denied everything, and they were impressed with his style.

2. Two friends of Mann told Dr. Foley that they were supportive of Mann.

3. None of the emails chosen by Mann showed any evidence of wrongdoing.

Exonerated? Not. | Watts Up With That?

why didn't the university just release the transcript of the interview with Mann? why did they studiously avoid talking with anyone critical of Mann. why didn't they look into whether emails had been illegally deleted?

 

[Old Rocks]

Fellows, here is how it is. This game can be played by both parties. I think it high time that we look at the funding of such liars as Watts. And someone should go through all his e-mails back to the Arpnet.

And then there is the matter of Dr. Lindzen and the tobacco and energy company money. Same treatment for that bozo.

And we already have the letter written by the Royal Society to Exxon concerning the money they put out to lie about global warming.

Time to get aggressive with assholes. Including that twerp in Virginia. Seems that there is grounds for a harrassment suit there. As well as personal libel.

 

[Old Rocks]

And Dr. Mann is to Climate science what Dillinger was to Banking.

And, other than the talking points of the Republican Teabagger Party, what is your proof of that?