Mike Mann and the Global Warming Cult

Michael Mann, has a letter to the WSJ defending his shoddy work, assuming, correctly for the most part, that most people will never examine the climategate emails.

Mann:

Our original work showed that average temperatures today are higher than they have been for at least the past 1,000 years. Since then, dozens of analyses from other scientists based on different data and methods have all affirmed and extended our original findings.

Emails:

From: Tim Barnett [[2]mailto:XXXXXXXXXXX@ucsd.edu]

Sent: 11 October 2004 16:42

To: Gabi Hegerl; Klaus Hasselmann

Cc: Prof.Dr. Hans von Storch; Myles Allen; francis; Reiner Schnur; Phil Jones; Tom Crowley; Nathan Gillett; David Karoly; Jesse Kenyon; christopher.d.miller@noaa.gov; Pennell, William T; Tett, Simon; Ben Santer; Karl Taylor; Stott, Peter; Bamzai, Anjuli

Subject: Re: spring meeting

not to be a trouble maker but……if we are going to really get into the paleo stuff, maybe someone(s) ought to have another look at Mann’s paper. His statistics were suspect as i remember. for instance, i seem to remember he used, say, 4 EOFs as predictors. But he prescreened them and threw one away because it was not useful. then made a model with the remaining three, ignoring the fact he had originally considered 4 predictors. He never added an artifical skill measure to account for this but based significance on 3 predictors. Might not make any difference. My memory is probably faulty on these issues, but to be completely even handed we ought to be sure we agree with his procedures. best, tim


#1656 Douglas Maraun – on how to react to skeptics.
How should we deal with flaws inside the climate community? I think, that “our” reaction on the errors found in Mike Mann’s work were not especially honest.

#3234 Richard Alley
Taking the recent instrumental record and the tree-ring record and joining them yields a dramatic picture, with rather high confidence that recent times are anomalously warm. Taking strictly the tree-ring record and omitting the instrumental record yields a less-dramatic picture and a lower confidence that the recent temperatures are anomalous.

Most of the rest of the email talks about the 'theft' of the emails. These are emails, which were subject to FOIA requests, which were ignored, or delayed. The emails released contain directions to delete emails lest they fall into the light of day from FOIA requests. And a few token lines about people in the pocket of the fossil-fuel interests. It's an interesting bogeyman to begin with, the thought that large oil companies oppose measures that will increase the cost of the product they sell. But it also laughable that folks whose entire income stream (and quite sizable for some as Mann reportedly made well over $1 million last year from climate speechifying, a piker compare to Al Gore who made well over $100 million from his climate shenanigans) accuse anyone who's ever filled up at an ExxonMobil station of being in the pocket of big oil.

Mann ends his screed with:

Celebrating theft is silly. We should respect the role science and scientists play in society, especially when scientists identify new risks. Whether those risks stem from smoking, lead exposure or the increasing use of fossil fuels, scientists will always work to increase knowledge and reduce uncertainty. And we all benefit from that work.

Scientists who refuse to share their data, who refuse to allow others to examine their work, who try to stop any opposing views or evidence from being published, etc... These are not scientists and that is not science. These are political activists posing as scientists. And as more evidence comes to light about their underhandedness, pettiness and chicanery, the whole edifice will collapse around them, and good riddance.