The End of Climategate

geochem1st

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
27,748
Reaction score
40,924
Michael Mann cleared of science fraud charges made by climate sceptics

The climate scientist Michael Mann, who has been under relentless attack from sceptics since the exposure of emails at East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, was cleared of research misconduct by a university investigation yesterday.

The four-month internal investigation by Pennsylvania State University found no evidence for charges made by climate sceptics that Mann had violated university ethics. The committee cleared Mann of the much more serious charges of falsifying and manipulating data last February.

The climate scientist is the author of the iconic "hockey stick" graph, showing a recent and rapid rise in the earth's temperature. The graphic depiction of global warming made Mann a prime target of those who deny the existence of climate change.

But the campaign against Mann escalated to new heights after emails taken from the Climatic Research Unit's server showed discussion over his use of a statistical "trick" to "hide the decline". Climate sceptics accused Mann of science fraud.

In its announcement yesterday, the university noted Mann's "outstanding" work was widely recognised in science circles – discounting accusations of misconduct. However, it chided him for circulating the unpublished work of other researchers without their consent.

Mann told Climate Science Watch that the decision was a vindication for scientists, who have been under attack since the release of thousands of emails from East Anglia last November.

"It's become clear that all of the claims that they had made originally, about the stolen CRU emails, are incorrect and do not stand up to scrutiny," he said. "There is no evidence of any impropriety on the part of the scientists. There's no indication of the fudging of data. There's no indication of any of the things they claim that these emails showed. And every investigation that's been done thus far has concluded that."

Mann added: "They have fundamentally failed in their effort to prove that climate change is a grand hoax."

His personal battle will go on however. Virginia's Republican attorney general is trying to investigate Mann for defrauding government research grants while he was at the University of Virginia.
Michael Mann cleared of science fraud charges made by climate sceptics, | Environment | guardian.co.uk
 

geochem1st

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
27,748
Reaction score
40,924
Advocacy group: Errors `riddle’ Cuccinelli claim on UVa climate papers

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s latest court filing in his effort to compel the University of Virginia to turn over docu ments related to the research activities of a climate change expert is “riddled with inaccuracies,“ a nonprofit science advocacy group said Thursday.

An analysis of Cuccinelli’s filing con ducted by the Washington-based Union of Concerned Scientists discovered at least three significant errors that the group says undercut the attorney general’s justification for investigating former UVa climatology researcher Michael Mann.

Cuccinelli’s court filing, which was written by Deputy Attorney General Wesley G. Russell Jr., cites the so called “climategate” scandal, in which e mails between climate change researchers ­ including Mann ­ were leaked from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Great Britain and posted online. Some skeptics believe the climate gate e-mails show researchers were manipulating climate change data, whereas others point out that several investigations in the United States and England have found no evidence of data manipulation.

In the filing, Russell wrote, “According to various reviews of the materials, various statements or methods have been attributed to Dr. Mann including the fact that he developed a `trick’ in order to `hide the decline’ and that he indicated to a research colleague in England that `[a]s we all know, this isn’t about the truth at all, it’s about plausibly deniable accusations.‘“ The filing continues, “Respondent admits that, much like the FATA investigation at issue here, governmental bodies in England felt the revelations warranted a governmental investigation.“

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, however, Cuccinelli’s filing is citing e-mails that are not referring to Mann’s research. The quoted phrases were actually in an email from scientist Phil Jones,w ho ran the climate research group at the University of East Anglia, in reference to an aspect of Mann’s work. In that same e-mail, Jones uses the words “hide the decline” to describe an aspect of research by scientist Keith Briffa, not Mann.

“If you’re an attorney general investigating Mike Mann, you think you’d at least have the common courtesy of pinning the right accusation on him,” union spokesman Aaron Huertas said.

Cuccinelli’s office declined to comment on the union’s analysis.

“We will address any arguments that the University of Virginia has posed when we file our court brief on July 13,” wrote Brian Gottstein, director of communication for the attorney general’s office,i n an e-mail. “We do not intend to address the arguments of other parties.” Cuccinelli, a Republican and skeptic of climate change,is seeking the documents as part of a probe into the possibility that Mann defrauded Virginia taxpayers when he was awarded four federal and one state research grants totaling $466,000 while working at UVa between 1999 and 2005.

The Union of Concerned Scientists further says that Cuccinelli’s court filing takes the phrases “trick” and “hide the decline” out of context.

Investigations by Factcheck.org, Pennsylvania State University,t he U.K. Parliament and an independent probe by the University of East Anglia all found that the phrases were technical jargon and have taken out of context by climate change skeptics.
The science advocacy group also questions the Cuccinelli filing’s use of Mann’s quote from a climategate e-mail in which he says “[a]s we all know, this isn’t about the truth at all, it’s about plausibly deniable accusations.” The Union of Concerned Scientists said an examination of the full e-mail chain makes it “fairly obvious” that Mann was referring to an inaccurate claims by a blogger about Briffa’s research, not his own.

In its analysis, the Union of Concerned Scientists said the errors as “yet another reason” that Cuccinelli ought to cease his investigation of Mann. UVa’s lawyers argue that Cuccinelli is overstepping his legal authority and that his actions infringe upon academic freedom and chill scientific inquiry and debate.

“At best, Cuccinelli misread the emails,” the organization said. “At worst, he is purposely and knowingly misrepresenting them. Cuccinelli’s inability to get the basic facts straight about the stolen emails, which he says justify his investigation, is yet another reason he should drop his misguided campaign against Michael Mann.” UVa’s lawyers,who are not paid by taxpayer dollars, declined to comment.

Coincidentally, an investigation by Penn State – which is where Mann now works – wrapped up Thursday and cleared the scientist of all allegations of scientific misconduct that arose from the climategate scandal.

“The Investigatory Committee, after careful review of all available evidence, determined that there is no substance to the allegation” against Mann, the investigators’ report said. “More specifically, the Investigatory Committee determined that Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate 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. The decision of the Investigatory Committee was unanimous.“
Advocacy group: Errors `riddle&#39 Cuccinelli claim on UVa climate papers | Charlottesville Daily Progress
 

BillB1960

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
15,908
Reaction score
21,237
Michael Mann cleared of science fraud charges made by climate sceptics

The climate scientist Michael Mann, who has been under relentless attack from sceptics since the exposure of emails at East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, was cleared of research misconduct by a university investigation yesterday.

The four-month internal investigation by Pennsylvania State University found no evidence for charges made by climate sceptics that Mann had violated university ethics. The committee cleared Mann of the much more serious charges of falsifying and manipulating data last February.
And this is a surprise why?
 

PraXis

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
24,931
Reaction score
24,437
lol

That's like having Madoff going 10 years while SEC insiders look the other way.
 

Splattle101

V.I.P. Member
Joined
May 30, 2008
Messages
8,801
Reaction score
4,505
So we've had the Times retracting their story - a leading Murdoch paper - and having to apologize for misleading articles and misquoting sources.

We've had all the 'smoking siege gun' claims about the stolen e-mails publicly debunked, ad nauseam.

We've had the accusations that the IPCC used data from the WWF publicly debunked and apologies issued for lying.

We've had the key scientists at the universities in question cleared of all accusations of wrong-doing.

And the denial party is still running around shouting "La-la-la-la-la-la". Keep going, fellas. The louder and more frequently you bleat your nonsense, the clearer you make it that your position is purely ideological, and that no amount of evidence will ever sway you.
 

KP

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2008
Messages
16,632
Reaction score
18,864
Originally Posted by geochem1st
Michael Mann cleared of science fraud charges made by climate sceptics

The climate scientist Michael Mann, who has been under relentless attack from sceptics since the exposure of emails at East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, was cleared of research misconduct by a university investigation yesterday.

The four-month internal investigation by Pennsylvania State University found no evidence for charges made by climate sceptics that Mann had violated university ethics. The committee cleared Mann of the much more serious charges of falsifying and manipulating data last February.
And this is a surprise why?
I could have told you 5 years ago that he would be cleared.
 

geochem1st

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
27,748
Reaction score
40,924
And this is a surprise why?
lol

That's like having Madoff going 10 years while SEC insiders look the other way.

The State of Virginia's AG's inquest will result in nothing as well....thats why I made the second post.

From reading the emails and having an understanding of scientific 'slang'..... terms like 'tricks', and 'hiding' have different meanings than what most think. Tempest in a teapot.

I am not saying that I endorse much of the climate communities modeling methodologies or conclusions. Simply, that climategate was a farce from the beginning. The hard science from roughly 200 years of research speaks for itself.
 

BillB1960

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
15,908
Reaction score
21,237
And the denial party is still running around shouting "La-la-la-la-la-la". Keep going, fellas. The louder and more frequently you bleat your nonsense, the clearer you make it that your position is purely ideological, and that no amount of evidence will ever sway you.
You are correct, no amount of trumped up, bullshit evidence will ever sway me. :thumb:
 

Splattle101

V.I.P. Member
Joined
May 30, 2008
Messages
8,801
Reaction score
4,505
You are correct, no amount of trumped up, bullshit evidence will ever sway me. :thumb:
Oh really? And yet here you are repeating the talking points provided by the denial industry. That's the denial industry that is on the public record admitting their entire project is basically dishonest. And that wasn't reported by some university, it was printed in the New York Times.

So don't worry. Your credentials for evidence-free-debate are quite safe. :rolleyes:
 

BillB1960

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
15,908
Reaction score
21,237
Oh really? And yet here you are repeating the talking points provided by the denial industry. That's the denial industry that is on the public record admitting their entire project is basically dishonest. And that wasn't reported by some university, it was printed in the New York Times.

So don't worry. Your credentials for evidence-free-debate are quite safe. :rolleyes:
I'm going to put it as simply as I can: I don't trust the computer models. Period. And all of this hand-wringing, inconvenient "truth" bullshit is based on computer models. We cannot even accurately predict the weather for the next 30 days via computer model yet you expect us to swallow hook, line & sinker that the computer models currently being used which predict climate change 10, 20, even 50 years from now are accurate. On top of that you also want us to make sweeping global economic changes based on this same disinformation. Nope, ain't buying it, not for a second.
 

Scooter2112

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2008
Messages
23,086
Reaction score
31,736
I'm going to put it as simply as I can: I don't trust the computer models. Period. And all of this hand-wringing, inconvenient "truth" bullshit is based on computer models. We cannot even accurately predict the weather for the next 30 days via computer model yet you expect us to swallow hook, line & sinker that the computer models currently being used which predict climate change 10, 20, even 50 years from now are accurate. On top of that you also want us to make sweeping global economic changes based on this same disinformation. Nope, ain't buying it, not for a second.
C'mon..... even Michael's Mom insists he did nothing wrong. :D
 

MineGoesTo11

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
14,384
Reaction score
19,301
I used to worry about climate change, and I still think it's a concern, but I think a more pressing concern for us is peak oil, and other forms of energy. People should be spending their time figuring out how they will adapt to a long period of decline. Without cheap energy, the current economic model doesn't work.
 

PraXis

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
24,931
Reaction score
24,437
Sorry, can't hear you over the roar of my SUV's engine.
 

BillB1960

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
15,908
Reaction score
21,237
When I die this is what I want my carbon footprint to look like:

 

geochem1st

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
27,748
Reaction score
40,924
I'm going to put it as simply as I can: I don't trust the computer models. Period. And all of this hand-wringing, inconvenient "truth" bullshit is based on computer models. We cannot even accurately predict the weather for the next 30 days via computer model yet you expect us to swallow hook, line & sinker that the computer models currently being used which predict climate change 10, 20, even 50 years from now are accurate. On top of that you also want us to make sweeping global economic changes based on this same disinformation. Nope, ain't buying it, not for a second.

First is the gross misconception by the public that climate models are predictive, they are not designed to be predictive. A predictive model would have to be able to account for hurricanes, volcanic erruptions, etc.

The climate models don' claim to be predictive. What they do is look at scenarios. Such as, if given 'x' quantity of co2 production for so many years, and all else is equal.. what will happen. Or, if solar reflectance in the northern hemisphere decreases by 'x' percentage over the next 20 years, how will that affect the temperature gradients. That is not predictive modeling. Huge difference.

The disinformation comes from political groups who do not understand the types of models discussed and the results generated. Then they twist those outcomes to their agendas.

EDIT:

Climate models can be a great tool. I suggest you learn about them in more detail and understand what they do before dismissing them completely due to some blogger who does have an agenda.
 

BillB1960

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
15,908
Reaction score
21,237
First is the gross misconception by the public that climate models are predictive, they are not designed to be predictive. A predictive model would have to be able to account for hurricanes, volcanic erruptions, etc.

The climate models don' claim to be predictive. What they do is look at scenarios. Such as, if given 'x' quantity of co2 production for so many years, and all else is equal.. what will happen. Or, if solar reflectance in the northern hemisphere decreases by 'x' percentage over the next 20 years, how will that affect the temperature gradients. That is not predictive modeling. Huge difference.

The disinformation comes from political groups who do not understand the types of models discussed and the results generated. Then they twist those outcomes to their agendas.

EDIT:

Climate models can be a great tool. I suggest you learn about them in more detail and understand what they do before dismissing them completely due to some blogger who does have an agenda.
I don't read blogs. There is more than enough legitimate scientific evidence available and many respected scientists who don't buy the climate change rhetoric that the need to rely on bloggers is unnecessary.

The fact that logic models are used as opposed to predictive models makes the hysteria even more illogical and ridiculous. It basically gives these scientists a license to simply Make Shit Up and feed it to gullible politicians like this guy:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9R-cQ_A_6w]YouTube - Rep. Hank Johnson Fears Guam May Capsize[/ame]
 

geochem1st

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
27,748
Reaction score
40,924
I don't read blogs. There is more than enough legitimate scientific evidence available and many respected scientists who don't buy the climate change rhetoric that the need to rely on bloggers is unnecessary.

The fact that logic models are used as opposed to predictive models makes the hysteria even more illogical and ridiculous. It basically gives these scientists a license to simply Make Shit Up and feed it to gullible politicians like this guy:

YouTube - Rep. Hank Johnson Fears Guam May Capsize

And I have asked repeatedly... where is the more than legitimate scientific evidence available? Really where? Cite a few.

The fact that logic models are used OVER predictive models lends credence to the studies if anything. You have controlled environments with the changing of select parameters one at a time to see the results. Just like in designing an airplane wing, or automotive engine, or a hundred other ways this type of modeling is successfully used in industry today. Nobody is making shit up. All I hear is vague allegations with no substance whatsoever.

Politicians do not even belong in the argument. So you can stuff Gore, Lord Brockton, Inhofe, whomever as examples.
 

MineGoesTo11

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
14,384
Reaction score
19,301
Sorry, can't hear you over the roar of my SUV's engine.
Will it roar as loudly when fuel costs double, or triple? How far are you willing to carry on 'sticking it to the left', until you are spending 60-70% of your income on fuel? That'll show 'em.
 

BillB1960

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
15,908
Reaction score
21,237
Politicians do not even belong in the argument. So you can stuff Gore, Lord Brockton, Inhofe, whomever as examples.
Politicians make policy and control the purse strings. Idiots like Gore and Hank Johnson are some of the biggest reasons we're where we're at today. Be that as it may I left politics out of this post.


http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf

Sea Levels

Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide increasing?

An Open Letter to the Community from Chris Landsea (Resignation Letter)

Limited role for C02
 


Latest Threads



Top