http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/1060856.html

Climate Science will be a dead letter office for fraudlent hacks and agenda-peddlars until something is done to clean this offal off thuroughfare of scientific discourse. Science, in general, as well as Geophysics in particular, is too vital to our culture and civilization to leave in the hands of men like Michael Mann,

He just oozes smugness not to mention that he should be investigated

I thought that the destruction of the man made global warming myth would be swifter, but I do enjoy the agony that they have trying to hold on to a complete fallacy.

There is a superb piece in this morning Wall Street Journal by Patrick Michaels, in which he discusses the most serious aspect of this travesty, naming Mr. Mann specifically as one of those who worked to put a climate publication out of business in order to suppress critics . . .

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598230426037244.html

Sorry, dunno if this requires a subscription. But if someone at RedState has this (and copyright doesn’t prevent an extract), I strongly suggest posting this for the readership here.

…that the four one-hundredths of a percent of CO2 in the atmosphere can’t affect climate in any measurable way.

And if liberals care so much, they should all stop breathing to save the planet.

You guys seem to think that you can change reality by changing public opinion. Its like if you can just get enough people to believe that AGW isn’t real then you win. Unfortunately nature doesn’t respond to public opinion. You can get the whole country to stick their heads in the sand and pretend that the problem isn’t there, but that isn’t going to change the reality that the earth is heating up with catastrophic consequences, and man is causing it.

You all are making great hay over the tree-ring trick comment. On the (obviously false) assumption that you just don’t understand the science and that is why you are drawing wrong conclusions (rather than intentionally trying to misinterpret data in order to support what you want to believe), I will explain it to you.

As you probably know, the size of tree rings is an indicator of climate. When trees have a good year, the rings are bigger. A good year might mean among other things, that it is hotter, or wetter, or for some reason there is more CO2. Historically, this was a good measure of climate, but by 1960 scientists were finding that tree ring data was becoming divorced from temperature, ie trees were getting large rings even on cold or dry years. “HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE?!?” you scream with outrage. The reason for this is because by 1960 the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere were becoming elevated and causing larger growth, thus tree ring data was no longer a reliable indicator of temperature and so in order to factor in this change in the chemistry of the atmosphere, scientists needed to adjust calculations. Fortunately since we have had thermometers since the 1960s we know very well what the temperature has been, so such calculations can be quite accurate.

Now that it has been explained to you, I have no doubt you will stop pretending that climate science is this century’s piltdown man.

“Your assertion, absent a whit of proof, of some massive infusion of CO2 into the atmosphere is merely part and parcel of the way you people are twisting science and tying statistical methods to the rack to get an answer you want.”

I thought your position was that increased CO2 in the atmosphere had no correlation to rising temperatures, but now you are claiming that there isn’t even an increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere? There is actually a lot of proof that CO2 levels are rising. What they do is compare current levels to measurements taken a decade ago, or two decades ago, or as far back as the chemistry of the atmosphere has been checked. I’m not sure how you can come out and declare that there is not one whiff of proof for something so well documented.

As far as your claim that the raw data prior to 1980 doesn’t exist, that is also a false statement. They may not have kept the compiled data at East Anglia, but the data still exists at the various weather stations where it was gathered. It is unfortunate that East Anglia did not keep all the data they compliled, but they didn’t get every weather station in the world to destroy all data prior to 1980.

The only part of your story that seems accurate on the face of it is where you say you’re not a scientist, and that what you are writing about has nothing to do with science.

And my bet is he is a fraud.
Notice that in the leaked e-mails none of these guys are talking abouthow great their evidence is.
None of them are talking about how they need to get their story out.
Instead they are covering, dissembling, distracting and defrauding.
Mann’s op-ed is more of the same.
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it may be climate fraud.

AGW isn’t a unique scientific fraud. When i was in college, the Soviet Union was trying to recover from Lysenko. Google or Wiki it. The great thing about science is that the truth comes out in the end. In a free world you can’t subvert & suppress all scientists. AGW did a pretty good job for a couple decades, but as the predictions don’t come to pass, the theories fail.

The Russians are making sure to not let up on ‘Climategate’; this report from the Daily Telegraph about a Russian newsrelease is pretty devastating:

Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.

Can you say “cherry-picking”, boys and girls? I knew you could.

It goes on and gets better:

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.

In other words, it’s likely that all the global data is similarly corrupted. One commentator notes:

The crux of the argument is that the CRU cherry picked data following the same methods that have been done everywhere else. They ignored data covering 40% of Russia and chose data that showed a warming trend over statistically preferable alternatives when available. They ignored completeness of data, preferred urban data, strongly preferred data from stations that relocated, ignored length of data set.

On the final page, there is a chart that shows that CRU’s selective use of 25% of the data created 0.64C more warming than simply using all of the raw data would have done. The complete set of data show 1.4C rise since 1860, the CRU set shows 2.06C rise over the same period.

If anyone reads Russian, there’s a link to the iea.ru report at the end of the article.

…I’ll toss in the observation that Al Gore sure seems hell bent on acting out the modernized character of Matthew Harrison Brady. As with the fictional character, Mr. Gore thrice rejected for the Presidency – 1988, 1999 (when the Senate refused to do their job), and 2000 – seems driven towards a very public flameout at the altar of his chosen faith. Alas, Mr. Brady had much more depth.

As a bonus to this unsolicited comment, I’ll also toss in the following comment to a 2007 pilgrim diary referring to Mr. Gore as “Possibly the Laziest Mind in Modern American Politics” (1):
“So the common myth goes…the environment is THE issue most important to Mr. Gore for which he long ago chose Global Warming as his vehicle to save us from ourselves.”
“It simply amazes me (not really) that this Envirosavior has done so very little to truly educate himself about the real science behind his issue. He’s been verifiably underemployed since January 1993 – except for his 2000 run for office – so even at a slow, self-paced, night school-like course load he could have several related technical degrees by now. All kidding aside, at the very least he has been in a position to command access to THE REAL SCIENCE COMMUNITY and could have compiled quite an impressive informal education in the climate field. Unfortunately, he has chosen the road most traveled and ended up in the Hollywood spotlight. (…and triggered a long awaited backlash by real scientists.)”
“I can only explain his last 15 years as unserious and intellectually lazy. The man who robotically passed on the planted phrase “no controlling legal authority” is obviously not a thinker. Yet, I so do hope he makes things interesting for the other side with a big announcement later this year.”

The announcement didn’t come but the current flameout will more than make up for that disappointment.

Ntrepid
Proud Member for 5 Years and 3 Month

(1)http://www.redstate.com/blogs/pilgrim/2007/jul/01/gore_vs_mother_nature_mother_nature_wins

nothing to do with science. AGW doesn’t have anything to do with science either.

Other than highlighting his duplicity, my concern here is outing Mann as a general asshat who, along with his fellow fabulists, have personally done more to damage science than the Inquisition on its worst day.

…language?

like with some other lone bone, or lone set of bones, that may actually only represent a ONE TIME freak of Nature and Liberals pegging it as the DEFINITIVE PROOF of the missing links in Evolution or the like….. Of course, it can be more than one or two occurrances, but when where it doesn’t occur several times it is indeed just A FREAK OF NATURE not a natural progression as they try to use it to extrapolate their “Theories!”