Climate change scientist absolved of email wrongdoing

Ah, it's so satisfying to be proven correct. Especially when it's global warming deniers who are being proven wrong.

Back in November I said, based on obvious evidence, that the hacked emails from a climate research center at the University of East Anglia would prove to be a big bunch of nothing.

Indeed, an independent examination of the emails showed no fraudulent actions by the researchers.

Since global warming is real, this is to be expected. What reason would there be for a researcher to make up fake facts when there are so many true ones?

Now, another nail in the coffin of global warming skeptics has been pounded. Michael Mann, one of the scientists whose emails were stolen, has been almost entirely cleared of scientific misconduct.

In some of the e-mail messages, Dr. Mann refers to his assembly of data from a number of different sources, including ancient tree rings and earth core samples, as a “trick.” Critics pounced on the term and said it was evidence that Dr. Mann and other scientists had manipulated temperature data to support their conclusions.

But the Penn State inquiry board said the term “trick” is used by scientists and mathematicians to refer to an insight that solves a problem. “The so-called ‘trick’ was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field,” the panel said.

The e-mail messages also contained suggestions that Dr. Mann had purposely hidden or destroyed e-mail messages and other information relating to a United Nations climate change report to prevent other scientists from reviewing them. Dr. Mann produced the material in question, and the Penn State board cleared him of the charge.

There were also questions of whether Dr. Mann misused confidential data and engaged in a conspiracy with like-minded scientists to withhold information from competing scholars. The Penn State board found nothing to support the charge.

Mann played a key role in developing the "hockey stick" graph that used the historic data alluded to in the above quotes from a New York Times story.

Now that graph, and Mann, have been vindicated.

The figure above is a version that shows the Arctic temperature trend over the past two thousand years. Message: human-caused global warming is overwhelming a natural cooling trend.

However, on one climate change issue I have to disagree with the otherwise right-on Climate Progress bloggers.

They're upset with the 2010 Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue for featuring supermodels cavorting in the Maldives, which could be inundated by an expected sea level rise.

Being scientifically minded, and wanting to do my own research, I watched the entire promotional video for the swimsuit issue. It looks fine to me. Real fine.

Comments

[Nolan]

So, I really wanted to make a comment about the fact that this won't get near the media coverage as the original email story. However, I am laughing too much about how you closed this post...

[Brerfox]

I don't know where to begin there are so many errors here. There were 4 charges and Mann was acquitted of 3. The fourth was advanced for more investigation. The committee, composed of others from Penn State who have a vested interest in the outcome.

I had the misfortune of actually reading all 1000 plus emails. In them there is absolutely no doubt what-so-ever of subverting the peer review process, blackballing others, FOIA violations, self promotion, manipulating data, destroying data, attempted tax evasion and the list goes on and on.

There may or may not be global warming or cooling but, you can take this to the bank. If the CRU CRew really believed in global warming they would be fearful of the result. They would be giving out every bit of information they could under the hope someone could show them errors. These people are not brattled school children, they are intelligent. Given such serious consequences, they would have to be stupid to not share everything openly and listen to everyone who may have something to add.

They are nothing short of con-men trying to get more grants.

[Idler]

What's the revised date for the Himalayan glaciers to melt?

[Blogger Brian]

Idler, the plain fact is that Himalayan glaciers are melting/retreating. Both observational and scientific evidence supports this. See:
http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/18/science-ipcc-melting-ice-himalayan-glaciers-2035-sea-level-rise/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climateprogress%2FlCrX+%28Climate+Progress%29

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100203161436.htm

http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2010/02/03/are-the-himalayan-glaciers-melting-why-not-see-for-yourself/

What isn't known is how fast they are melting. Scientists make mistakes, just like all of us do. The IPCC has admitted that it shouldn't have included the statement that the glaciers will melt by 2035 in its report.

But this doesn't negate the fact that the glaciers are melting. The reality of global warming hasn't been affected a bit by this minor error.

Brerfox, you're wrong. The people with a vested monetary interest in climate change are the energy companies and others who make big bucks from spewing greenhouse gas pollution into the world -- which is threatened with catastrophic consequences. See:
http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/13/‘grassroots’-opposition-to-clean-energy-reform-bankrolled-by-foreign-oil-petro-governments/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climateprogress%2FlCrX+%28Climate+Progress%29

You can educate yourself on the facts about global warming in a mere 12 minutes via these two videos:
http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/05/videos-humans-are-changing-the-climate-global-warming-threat-chris-field/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climateprogress%2FlCrX+%28Climate+Progress%29

[Idler]

Brian, this was one hell of a "mistake." Mistakes of this caliber don't do much for the credibility of those who make them."Oh, did I say you were going to be dead in two weeks? What I actually meant was you're going to die eventually, I just don't know when. My bad! I guess I shouldn't have sourced my diagnosis on a medical student's homework!"

The point is not that there is indeed glacial melting, but rather there was a specific claim made, unsupported by evidence, and reiterated to serve an alarmist agenda. Not only that, but on the strength of the claim, a great deal of money went to the research organization of people involved in publicizing the claim. None of this is in dispute.

As far as I know, it's not controversial that there has been a long warming trend (though a subsequent short decline has been suppressed), and I personally took interest in receding glaciers back in the 1990s. However, claims are being made, and hugely consequential policy changes are being called for without sufficient scientific support.

It may be true that any great prediction of change will be met with resistance, no matter how convincing the evidence. But there has been a great deal of chicanery and religious zeal pushing anthropogenic global warming. It doesn't help that this latest apocalyptic claim comes on the heels of others — which also bore the imprimatur of "science" — that haven't panned out (e.g., specific "population explosion" claims, disappearance of resource scares, return of the ice age, etc.).

It has become obvious that there are social forces quite apart from science driving the global warming craze — and industry. Scientists and universities (e.g., Penn State) have a vested interest in global warming because of the government resources directed toward a perceived problem. The same can be said for the insurance industry. Is it good corporate citizenship that led Swiss Re to embrace AGW early on? Or is it that they sell catastrophe protection? "Do you need to insure against global warming? You bet you do!"

What is needed is a less apocalyptic, more open and sane discussion of the impact of humanity on the environment. Great strides have been made in other areas of environmental impact when such an approach has been taken.

[DJ]

In case anyone who follows Brian’s climate change blogging ever wonders whether he is motivated by an ideological agenda or if he’s just a useful idiot, this post will offer clear insight.

Brian, based upon comments you made at 7:51 PM yesterday under your Portland Police post ( http://hinessight.blogs.com/hinessight/2010/02/portland-police-kill-another-unarmed-man.html ), you clearly understand the difference between a biased inquiry and an independent investigation. Your verbatim quote: ““OJ Simpson was acquitted by a biased jury. Does that mean he was innocent? The Portland Police Bureau and Union almost always excuse police misconduct.”

So let me get this straight.
- You’re correctly able to identify BIAS based on CONFLICT OF INTEREST as the common denominator between the OJ Simpson jury and the Portland Police Bureau and Union.
- You not only identify it, you explicitly USE the existence of BIAS as the BASIS OF YOUR Portland Police Bureau ARGUMENT.
- Yet, somehow, you inexplicably FAIL TO EXTEND THAT SAME LOGIC and critical eye to a three person PENN STATE academic board that conducted an internal closed inquiry on one of their own – namely, research grant cash cow Michael Mann???

Furthermore, the Portland Police link you provided stated, “But that grand jury hearing was narrow in scope and out of the public eye; it is, and was, no substitute for a public inquest.“ How can you, Brian, agree with their statement and look forward to further revelations in that case – yet at the same time be so smug, satisfied, and quick to declare, “climate change scientist absolved” in response to nothing more than the findings of a Penn State inquiry that was narrow in scope and out of the public eye???

So folks, is Brian motivated by an ideological agenda or is he just a useful idiot? Based on his spin-zone approach to logic, he’s definitely a CLIMATE CHANGE IDEOLOGUE. But based on transparency of technique, he scores high points for useful idiot as well. Call it a split decision. Keep on blogging, Brian, the unraveling of AGW theory is depending on you!

[Idler]

I don't see any reason to be rude to Brian. Reasonable people differ on these things. Ideology can and does play a role on both sides.

Surely if you're on the opposite side from Brian on this one you would think that one of the problems with politicized science is that it misuses the proper authority of science. You don't blame the conned for the crime of the con man.

In any case, your tone is way over the top. I think an apology is in order. It would show your own reasonableness. Or otherwise.

[Blogger Brian]

Idler, I too am looking for some reasonableness from DJ and other global warming deniers.

It's interesting that none of these guys ever supplies links to peer-reviewed scientific papers supporting their contention that global warming isn't occurring. But they're excellent at name-calling and insults.

Fortunately, reality is what it is. Truth isn't a matter of who has the most steam coming out of their outraged head. Climate science is founded on facts, not ranting.

[DJ]

Idler, most of your themes are self-evident…’ideology on both sides’…’science is politicized.’

And you are exactly correct, ‘reasonable people differ’ – but honesty is inherently necessary if a ‘reasonable’ dialogue is to take place. Brian is being less than honest with you.

The theme, “don’t blame the conned for the crime of the con man” is not so black and white. In fact, it goes to the heart of my question about Brian: is he the conned (i.e.: useful idiot) or is he the con man (i.e.: climate change ideologue)? I am not name calling here. I am absolutely serious that I believe Brian is a con man/ideologue based on his demonstrated ability to apply valid logic where it suits his argument (Portland Police example) while intentionally failing to extend that same valid logic to the Penn State board in order to prop up his “emails show no fraud” and “scientist absolved of email wrongdoing” arguments. Brian should be ashamed for being so blatantly dishonest. He should be equally ashamed for expecting his readers not to see through his transparently concocted rationale.

Idler, it’s Brian you should be asking to apologize for taking your intelligence so for granted. You and every reader of Brian’s climate change blogs should be insulted by his dishonesty and hubris. Brian thought he could make his readers his useful idiots, but this time he’s been busted.