ClimateGate's Michael Mann Being Investigated By Penn State

newsbusters.org...

As a result of the growing ClimateGate scandal, Penn State University is investigating Michael Mann, its high-profile professor on the sending and receiving end of controversial e-mail messages recently obtained from a British Climate Research Unit.

Mann, as one of the originators of the infamous Hockey Stick graph, is the climatologist at the very heart of the global warming myth.

As the creator of "Mike's Nature trick," a particularly damning phrase used in one of the e-mail messages in question, Mann is also a key figure in ClimateGate.

Given his importance to the climate movement and all those involved including Nobel Laureate Al Gore, President Obama, and Congressional Democrats desperately trying to enact cap and trade legislation, it will be very interesting to see how this press release from Penn State gets reported in the coming days (h/t Anthony Watts via Marc Morano):

(snip)

From: "Michael E. Mann" ,,,Subject: RE: IPCC revisions Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 12:35:24 -0400
...
Walked into this hornet's nest this morning! Keith and Phil have both raised some very good points. And I should point out that Chris, through no fault of his own, but probably through ME not conveying my thoughts very clearly to the others, definitely overstates any singular confidence I have in my own (Mann et al) series.
...I had been using the entire 20th century, but in the case of Keith's, we need to align the first half of the 20th century w/ the corresponding mean values of the other series, due to the late 20th century decline.

So if Chris and Tom (?) are ok with this, I would be happy to add Keith's series. That having been said, it does raise a conundrum: We demonstrate (through comparining an exatropical averaging of our nothern hemisphere patterns with Phil's more extratropical series) that the major discrepancies between Phil's and our series can be explained in terms of spatial sampling/latitudinal emphasis (seasonality seems to be secondary here, but probably explains much of the residual differences). But that explanation certainly can't rectify why Keith's series, which has similar seasonality *and* latitudinal emphasis to Phil's series, differs in large part in exactly the opposite direction that Phil's does from ours. This is the problem we all picked up on (everyone in the room at IPCC was in agreement that this was a problem and a potential distraction/detraction from the reasonably concensus viewpoint we'd like to show w/ the Jones et al and Mann et al series.

So, if we show Keith's series in this plot, we have to comment that "something else" is responsible for the discrepancies in this case. Perhaps Keith can help us out a bit by explaining the processing that went into the series and the potential factors that might lead to it being "warmer" than the Jones et al and Mann et al series?? We would need to put in a few words in this regard. Otherwise, the skeptics have an field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith in the paleoestimates. I don't think that doubt is scientifically justified, and I'd hate to be the one to have to give it fodder!

Lots of late breaking news on this tonight. Here is another article where CRU has seemingly decided to release their data after refusing to.

Thing is, can their data be trusted now? How about the data from the exhaust units and such? Will this be the changed data or some data deleted? Or raw data? Or totally faked data? How can you trust any data?

Climategate: University of East Anglia U-turn in climate change row
www.telegraph.co.uk...

Leading British scientists at the University of East Anglia, who were accused of manipulating climate change data - dubbed Climategate - have agreed to publish their figures in full.

Is anyone in the U.S. even really going to pay attention? I am doubting it more and more as the headlines are coming through tonight. Gordo wants to send millions to small countries so they can sign on at Copenhagen. They can't do it without the money, so he wants to help. Now it seems like it is the same old same old, rush and do it now cause it's an emergency!

www.guardian.co.uk...

Gordon Brown has unveiled a $22bn (£13.3bn) global fund to respond to the world's "climate emergency" by fast-tracking funds to poorer countries from next year.

In an intensification of preparations for the Copenhagen summit, which starts on 7 December, the prime minister announced the spending pledge to halt deforestation, build flood defences and boost renewable supplies in the developing world.

I am already thoroughly disgusted with this.

This is an attempt at a white-wash. They are going to bury themselves. The CRU data they are going to release is going to be the adjusted data. They have already come out and said they "lost" the unaltered data, so even after they release the adjusted data the calls to release the unadjusted data will come to see how they adjusted the data.

Then it just spirals down from there. The gig is up. The more data they release the deeper they will dig themselves into a whole become more questions will arise. Just give it time, they tried to push it under the rug, but it won't go away and now they is about to be an onslaught of questions which will expose themselves as being crooked.

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


And you were right on the money! Here is an article from today.

www.timesonline.co.uk...

Climate change data dumped
From The Sunday Times November 29, 2009
Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor


SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.

Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years.

He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is “unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity.

So now this begs the question... In one of the emails where he said he would rather delete the data rather than release it to a FIOA request.

Why is it that I cannot believe a word they have to say about this now!

Value added, my arse! I read that as twisted to fit their agenda.

And now, with them being sued, they were "forced" to reveal this? Heh, I can just simply do nothing but shake my head. And they are about to "funadementally change" this country based on this garbage? Why is there not more outrage than what I am seeing?

edit for typo


[edit on 29-11-2009 by Libertygal]

reply to post by Libertygal


I can't quite make out what your point of view is here, Liberty Gal.

You quote Dr. Mann's email in which he clearly says we have some data (Keith's) that doesn't jive with other data. This is interesting, and we really should pay attention to it and figure out where the discrepancy lies.

It clearly and unambiguously says that it is important that it be included and that the explanation for it must stand up to examination. What more could you possibly ask?

Nothing to see here. Move on.

reply to post by rnaa


It's called a "White-wash". Interesting how now after decades of this mess, that NOW it matters the data stands up to examination. They are pulling a CYA.

The fact is after reading the e-mails and looking over the code, none of these people can be trusted.

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by rnaa

 

It's called a "White-wash". Interesting how now after decades of this mess, that NOW it matters the data stands up to examination. They are pulling a CYA.

The fact is after reading the e-mails and looking over the code, none of these people can be trusted.

The email from Mann is from 1999. The issue was addressed 10 years ago, not 'after decades of this mess' and not under pressure. It was addressed solely for the purposes of getting it right.

Do you understand that? In 1999 they didn't have people breathing down their necks calling them liars every time they sneezed. And even without that pressure they were cognizant of the need to ensure that their methodology was transparent and they could explain the differences between datasets that were collected under differing circumstances by different researchers for different purposes.

You have a very strange take on the issue. If you learn ANYTHING from this episode, it should be to trust scientists more than ever. You really need to stop shooting the messenger and start dealing with the consequences of the message.

reply to post by rnaa


Trust the "scientist" that have colluded to delete data, stifle opposing views, and manipulate the data? Sorry I can think for myself, and yet they STILL haven't released the data, they are working on it now, but it is the adjusted data. Conveniently they deleted the raw data.

Sorry, but the e-mail from 1999 is just more proof of the collusion behind the scenes manipulating the data to get it to fit their hypothesis.

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by rnaa

 

Trust the "scientist" that have colluded to delete data, stifle opposing views, and manipulate the data? Sorry I can think for myself, and yet they STILL haven't released the data, they are working on it now, but it is the adjusted data. Conveniently they deleted the raw data.

Sorry, but the e-mail from 1999 is just more proof of the collusion behind the scenes manipulating the data to get it to fit their hypothesis.

Unfortunately, there is not one syllable in your post that is correct.

The raw data is not lost for a start. Perhaps the copy that the database analysts were working on was thrown out years after they were done with it, but it still exists in many other places.

The 1999 memo quoted by LibertyGal is a specific case of ensuring opposing view do get heard and taken into account. It is the kind of thing that goes on in every office in every city on every day. It is completely mundane. And yes, its exposure is a little window into a very reasonable and proper approach that should give you a warm and fuzzy feeling that they are doing a good job.

Now I'm curious about how you could come to a different conclusion. Other than trying desperately to find anything that could validate your personal war on science and preconceived notion that the world is lying to you, that is.

Do you actually work in an environment where you have to ask questions of other people in order to get your job done? (and "Do you want fries with that?" doesn't count). Do you ever have to collaborate with co-workers in order to the job done? (and squeezing the catsup onto the burger patty before the putting the bun on top doesn't count). Do you ever actually have to deal with different ideas about how to best accomplish a job? (and trading days off with the drive up window cashier doesn't count).

If so, don't you ever get things wrong and have to start over? Don't you ever clean out your notes (or worn out tools or whatever) from 3 years ago? Do you ever expect your rambling thoughts, your false starts, your 'back of a napkin' drawings of a prototype, your trivial debates with co-workers are going to be picked over 10 years from now and used as evidence that you are an incompetent lying smuck?

[edit on 29/11/2009 by rnaa]

reply to post by rnaa

Now I'm curious about how you could come to a different conclusion. Other than trying desperately to find anything that could validate your personal war on science

I got to that part of your post and stopped reading. I don't have a problem with science when it is done correctly and follows the accepted scientific method. Which in the case of Climatology has not followed the scientific method. That is the point. All the alarmist claims of burning up in a fiery inferno and drowning to death are unsubstantiated.

The earth is 4+ billion years old. Going off of 150 years of questionable data to come to these conclusions that the "scientist" have come too isn't science. It is more like a bunch of activist playing scientist.

The fact of the matter is the CRU data set is the data set that most of the papers written has been based off of. And now in order to check their adjustments it is going to take YEARS to recompile the data and see what they have done. In order to fact check what they have done.

And this comes YEARS after many people requesting the data to be release. Now that they have gotten caught they want to release the data, which isn't even the complete data set it is the adjusted data set.

I'm sorry, but that is the facts. If the "scientist" that you are so openly defending would have followed the scientific method from day one none of this would have been going on. In fact the hypothesis wouldn't have even stood up to scrutiny because CO2 lags temperature.

CO2 driven AGW is a farce and failed hypothesis. That is a fact.

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife

I got to that part of your post and stopped reading....

That's OK. Everything after that is just a response in kind to your insult of fellow human beings with dreams, fears, children, grandchildren, jobs, mortgates, boats, BBQ's, Playstations, just like you. Why on earth would these massive numbers of people want to wish paranoia on their grandchildren over a lie? It just makes no sense what-so-ever. And neither does your attack on their integrity.

The fact of the matter is the CRU data set is the data set that most of the papers written has been based off of. And now in order to check their adjustments it is going to take YEARS to recompile the data and see what they have done. In order to fact check what they have done.

You do realize that this so-called 'original raw data' that was thrown out would have been in hundreds of different formats and media? That's why the emails show the analysts debating the best way to reconcile the datasets. It would be on punch cards, reel-to-reel tape, even poor quality photocopies of hand written log books. And none of it belonged to the CRU, so they couldn't release data that they were contractually obligated to not release to 3rd parties.

Even if they had not thrown the material out, you wouldn't even be able to read much of it. There really aren't that many operating card readers around, and not many 256 BPI reel-to-reel tape drives either (but if you find one, let me know, I'd like to get some historical programs off the set of tapes I've bee schlepping around for no good reason). I suspect that all that data would fit on a modest size 'message stick', but on the original media I imagine it would have required a great deal of expensive storage space.

There was nothing sinister, or unethical, or unscientific about throwing it out. It was surplus to requirements, and the bean-counters would have made the call that they didn't want to pay for its storage, not the scientists or database analysts.

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


The data is available and it appears that it has been so all along if you knew where to look. So here is the announcement of the links page that brings it all together.

Now, are you a scientist that is able to make use of that data?

Source: RealClimate.org


Please go to the source site for further information on this and the links page they have set up.