Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann is demanding that National Review retract and apologize for a July 15 post that compared him to Jerry Sandusky, the convicted child molester and former Penn State assistant football coach.
The post in question, by Mark Steyn, accused Mann of academic fraud, dredging up a discredited charge that emerged in 2009 following the leak of emails between Mann and other scientists, which critics claimed were evidence of data manipulation. Despite the fact that almost half a dozen investigations affirmed the integrity of Mann’s research, Steyn quoted a post from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) that referred to Mann’s work as Penn State’s “other scandal,” and read:
Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.
CEI has deleted that and another sentence from its post, which was written by Rand Simberg, one of its “scholars,” calling them “inappropriate” in an editor’s note appended at the end. Steyn’s post remains unaltered, but in it he distanced himself from the Sandusky reference very slightly, writing, “Not sure I’d have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers with quite the zeal Mr Simberg does, but he has a point.”
In the minds of Simberg and Steyn, the numerous investigations that supported Mann were “just another cover-up and whitewash.”
In a letter sent Friday to Scott Budd, National Review’s executive publisher, Mann’s attorney, John B. Williams, called Steyn’s allegations defamatory:
“Your allegation of academic fraud is false, and was clearly made with the knowledge that it was false….” Williams wrote. “And further, you draw the insidious comparison between Dr. Mann and Jerry Sandusky, who as you point out, was recently convicted of child molestation. This reference is simply outrageous and clearly subjects your publication to a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
“Needless to say, we intend to pursue all appropriate legal remedies on behalf of Dr. Mann.”
Neither Budd nor National Review editor Rich Lowry returned calls requesting comment on Williams’s letter. Politico, one of the only major outlets to cover the altercation so far, didn’t fare much better, reporting that Lowry and Steyn failed to respond to its requests for comment.
Politico was, however, able to reach CEI’s Simberg. According to its article:
Simberg, in an email to POLITICO, said his Sandusky comparison “was to the fact that the Penn State administration covered up Mann’s behavior in a similar manner, not in the behavior itself,” adding, “neither I or anyone was accusing [Mann] of child molestation.”?
Mann will have a difficult time winning any future lawsuit because he “has already made himself a public figure” and “neither I, nor Mark Steyn or anyone else have written anything actionable or false, as far as I know,” Simberg said.
“I think he’s just blowing smoke in hopes of getting a cheap ‘apology.’ I guess if he does decide to come after me, I’ll crowd source a legal defense fund, or find someone to take it on pro bono. I suspect I’ll have no shortage of support,” Simberg said, stressing that he is speaking for himself and not CEI.
“This is not a bluff,” Williams said when asked about Simberg’s comment. “This is a very strong case. I’ve done a fair amount of libel and defamation work. I vet the cases pretty thoroughly before I take them, and I don’t bluff. We’re going to bring it unless they retract and apologize.”
Andrew Weaver, a climate scientist at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, knows a little something about what Mann is going through. In 2010 he sued Canada’s National Post newspaper for libel, citing four articles that he said sought to damage his reputation. The following year, he launched another suit against Tim Ball, a former geography professor at the University of Winnipeg, over an allegedly libelous article published by the Canada Free.
Both suits are ongoing and Weaver referred questions about them to his lawyer, Roger McConchie, who did not respond to requests for comment.
Ahhh ....... Great Merciful Shiva be braised! When Mann files his frivolous suit discovery is going to be the back door to get at all that data he's been sitting on.
#1 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Wed 25 Jul 2012 at 03:55 PM
Dr. Mann is not sitting on his data. It is published on the Internet. Here is what he told Congressman Barton:
"My research is all based on data sets regarding the Earth’s climate that are freely and widely available to all researchers. Whether I make available my computer programs is irrelevant to whether our results can be reproduced...
My computer program is a piece of private, intellectual property, as the National Science Foundation and its lawyers recognize. It is a bedrock principle of American law that the government may not take private property “without [a] public use,” and “without just compensation.”"---Dr. Michael Mann's letter to Congressman Joe Barton (7-15-05)
#2 Posted by c. Henry, CJR on Wed 25 Jul 2012 at 04:16 PM
He'd be crazy to sue over this badmouthing.
If he did, we'd finally get to the bottom of "Mike's Nature Trick" and all the chicanery that has gone into his defense of his "cause".
I predict here now that if Mann files suit.... The remaining quarter of a million currently encrypted Climategate emails will hit the net.
There's no question the man manipulated data- his bogus "hockey stick" graph directly relies on such manipulation (substituting a proxy temperature record when the actual temperature record didn't give the "right" result).
And there is no question the man is a public figure - making it nearly impossible for him to prevail in a defamation case.
I think he's just blowing smoke. But here's hoping he's dumb enough to try.
#3 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 25 Jul 2012 at 04:19 PM
Wow, you guys mean Williams and Mann hadn't thought about the discovery process? Really? You're sure?
#4 Posted by J Bowers, CJR on Wed 25 Jul 2012 at 05:46 PM
It should be mentioned that the CEI was the ones who did that lovely pr campaign that got pulled after the Unabomber billboard:
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/09/local/la-me-gs-unabomber-billboard-continues-to-hurt-heartland-institute-20120509
That's their best argument - the one they lead with on a freaking billboard. These idiots don't know when to quit.
#5 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 25 Jul 2012 at 05:48 PM
Since Dr. Mann and his co-workers made the Hockey Stick, many other climate scientists have done research and come up with the same results. People keep saying that his data is hidden, but it's right on the Internet. To say it is hidden is nothing but a BIG LIE!
The administrators who got in trouble for concealing the pedophile case did not investigate Mann. He was investigated by science professors. Here is the result of the investigation.
http://www.research.psu.edu/orp/documents/Findings_Mann_Inquiry.pdf
#6 Posted by c. Henry, CJR on Wed 25 Jul 2012 at 06:18 PM
Thimbles, good point. Hopefully CEI learns from their mistakes and puts the linked picture on a billboard near the courtroom should this go to trial.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/pants_afire_scr.jpg
#7 Posted by Hokey Shtick Hoax, CJR on Wed 25 Jul 2012 at 06:26 PM
Understand... the article reports on the efforts of Pennsylvania State University to hide knowledge of crimes going on in their jurisdiction in order to protect fame and fortune that accrued to the University. The outcome of the court case suggests that this corruption went to the highest level at the school and was only acted upon when third parties started taking action.
This places the university on public probation and should compel them to investigate all activities at the university that general fame and fortune.
Before the FBI comes in.
#8 Posted by lemon, CJR on Wed 25 Jul 2012 at 06:29 PM
I hear Sandusky wants to file a law suit too for associating him with Mike Mann. It could be a bluff or he could be in the buff, who knows?
#9 Posted by Hokey Shtick Hoax, CJR on Wed 25 Jul 2012 at 06:35 PM
"The outcome of the court case suggests that this corruption went to the highest level at the school and was only acted upon when third parties started taking action. This places the university on public probation and should compel them to investigate all activities at the university that general fame and fortune."
Inquiry #1: PSU (Feb 2010)
Inquiry #2: House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (Mar 2010)
Inquiry #3: University of East Anglia in consultation with the Royal Society (Apr 2010)
Inquiry #4: PSU Final Investigation Report (Jun 2010)
Inquiry #5: UEA Independent Climate Change Email Report (Jul 2010)
Inquiry #6: EPA investigation (Jul 2010)
Inquiry #7: HM Government in response to House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Report (Sep 2010)
Inquiry #8: Dept of Commerce Inspector General independent review of the emails (Feb 2011)
Inquiry #9: National Science Foundation (Aug 2011)
No research misconduct by Michael Mann found in any of the above.
#10 Posted by J Bowers, CJR on Wed 25 Jul 2012 at 07:37 PM
I don't see where Mann's attorney said they were definitely going to bring a lawsuit if the article is left unchanged.
He said: “Needless to say, we intend to pursue all appropriate legal remedies on behalf of Dr. Mann.”
That very lawyerly statement leaves a couple questions unanswered.
Have they determined there are actually "legal remedies" worth pursuing through the court system?
Does Mann think it "appropriate" to subject himself to the discovery process?
#11 Posted by Bob Koss, CJR on Wed 25 Jul 2012 at 08:27 PM
Lemon implies that the FBI is going to investigate Dr. Mann, but actually the Justice Department seems to be investigating the hackers who stole his emails:
"I hope that the separate investigation underway by the Justice Department in the US will continue undaunted, especially since the British police concluded that the data breach was the result of a 'sophisticated and carefully orchestrated attack'."---Dr. Michael Mann in BBC News (7-18-12)
Dr. Mann does research for Federal Agencies that are part of the National Intelligence Council, so probably the FBI doesn't think he is dishonest and is not impressed by the morons and liars who spread propaganda. I think the security agencies get a little mad when people hack into the emails of the people they consult on national security issues such as climate change. Maybe that is why the Justice Department, which the FBI is part of, is investigating the people who hacked into Dr. Mann's emails.
#12 Posted by c. Henry, CJR on Thu 26 Jul 2012 at 06:12 AM
When you are reduced to saying that all the reviews and investigations are part of the coverup (which is what Mann's detractors have to say) you are getting right into tinfoil hat, Man-never-walked-on-the-moon territory.
His data is out there. He never hid anything.The hockey stick is fundamentally accurate. AGW is real. It is a complicated and scary world out there, but burying one's head in the sand does not improve things.
#13 Posted by garhighway, CJR on Thu 26 Jul 2012 at 07:43 AM
I predict that history will record the the Hokey Shtick affair as one of the more important contributors to the demise of the IPCC as a reputable source of climate science. Science 2.0 Physics.org, and many other hard science blogs are all writing about how the IPCC is broken and how the IPCC has decided to ignore IAC recommendations for improvement and allows Greenpeace, UCS and other political activist organizations, to sit at the science table and shape the IPCC report. Because of this political activist infestation of the science process, there are already rumors that this will be the last and least trusted IPCC report.
Newer proxies with better resolution than Briffa's trees are making it through peer review and showing that the RWP and MWP exsisted. The desire to eliminate the RWP and MWP by the IPCC was a calculated risk that is backfiring. Mann's and the IPCC's credibility has passed the tipping point with the release of the Climategate emails. If you doubt this watch this video of how Berkley physicist Richard Muller describes his disappointment and anger when he learns of Mike Mann's "Hide the Decline".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk
If you think Muller is the only ethical scientist out there that doesn't accept such abuse of science from Mike Mann you are fooling yourself and like Muller many of us will never read another paper that Mann is associated with.
Mann's chickens are coming home to roost. He has brought all this negative attention on himself and it seems like Karmic justice that he, his defenders and State Pen University are all going down in flames.
#14 Posted by Hokey Shtick Hoax, CJR on Thu 26 Jul 2012 at 08:43 AM
Hey look! Steyn says he can't wait to see Mann in court. lol
http://www.steynonline.com/5085/i-dont-bluff
#15 Posted by Hokey Shtick Hoax, CJR on Thu 26 Jul 2012 at 09:19 AM
I for one don't think Mann's lawyers want this to see a courtroom. Having Mann try to explain the emails brought to light in Climategate would be quite entertaining. And we all would like him to explain why tree rings were not good enough for the second half of the twentieth century, but perfectly fine for the period preceding that. And of course, the discovery process will be used to force Mann to release all those emails, data and computations that he has been so anxious to keep secret.
#16 Posted by Jay Davis, CJR on Thu 26 Jul 2012 at 12:06 PM
Brainard = Hack. Mann isn't suing CEI, he's suing NRO AND Steyn. NRO doesn't comment on pending litigation because that would be stupid, and you didn't bother to ask Steyn for a comment because he would handily expose you as the lesser intellect. You couldn't be bothered to find one single source from the other side of the story, and you made your bias pretty clear in the article. Usually you journalist hacks like to at least feign objectivity, but clearly that was too much :effort:
#17 Posted by Danyael, CJR on Thu 26 Jul 2012 at 12:29 PM
Yup, Mark is so terrified of the Mann that he linked to this one sided bit of drivel.
Discovery will be fun.
More fun is that Mark compared the investigations at Penn State rather than making the equivalence between the child molester and Mann which, apparently, Mann seems to think is apt.
(And, as a side note CEI is not the Heartland Institute and had nothing to do with billboards. But keep plugging the narrative lads.)
#18 Posted by Jay Currie, CJR on Thu 26 Jul 2012 at 02:17 PM
The fringe dwellers have zero scientific evidence against Mann, but the scam continues, sponsored by big energy. This nonsense continues as if these "journalists" and pundits think they can jump ship and live on another planet when the tipping point is reached. Too bad their masters already have that ship booked and none of the help is included.
#19 Posted by D Paul, CJR on Thu 26 Jul 2012 at 04:32 PM
The name of the computer model that can accurately predict the effect of atmospheric CO2 concentration on the average global temperature is ______________________.
The atmospheric CO2 concentration that will keep a steady average global temperature is _______________ ppm.
Fill in the blanks (with defensible responses) and you'll have a new Warmingist among your ranks.
Until then, you should be asking yourselves why it is that you can't fill in the blanks.
#20 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 26 Jul 2012 at 06:00 PM
So can everyone labeled a "global warming denier" sue Mann and his ilk for the obvious insinuation of an equivalence with racist deniers of the Holocaust?
#21 Posted by Fitz, CJR on Fri 27 Jul 2012 at 02:01 AM
If people were calling the skeptical-of-science folk 'holocaust-deniers' you'd have a point.
But denialist movements range from global warming to 9-11 to vaccinations!=autism. There is no monopoly on the object of denial, just the pattern. Therefore, the association between 'genocide denying out of racism' and 'climate science denying out of stupidity' is not strong. Stick a holocaust in there and you'll have a point.
#22 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 27 Jul 2012 at 02:18 AM
c.Henry: Mann saying that his programs to manipulate data are "proprietary" is nonsense. If the programs are just applying standard statistical analyses, there is no IP involved. If they are modifying the data in non-statistical ways, unless those algorithms are fully described no one should have confidence in the results. For example, it is NASA policy that both data and algorithms be released. Saying the data is available, as Mann does, but not releasing the algorithms used to manipulate the data is hogwash.
#23 Posted by eb99, CJR on Fri 27 Jul 2012 at 02:54 AM
1. Public use would include defense in a law suit. The defense cannot be denied the tools to defend itself.
2. What Mark Steyn had in his head will be difficult if not impossible to prove. The suit against David Irving was successful only because it introduced solid evidence that Irving knew the Holocaust was fact and his reasons for burying these facts were malice derived from ideology and/or pathology. Steyn has no such published document supporting or acknowledging climate change. His skepticism has been consistent.
3. The comparison to Sandusky was not regarding behavior with children but with a PR coverup. No reasonable reader would think otherwise and the lawsuit therefore collapses on these grounds too.
4. Intention to inflict emotional distress is another losing battleground. How can Mr. Steyn's motives be ascertained? By looking at past behavior. Steyn has built a career on entertainment, humor (except his demographic sky-is-falling divigation) and either independent thinking or its facsimile depending on one's point of view. His intention is manifestly to be a success in the highly competitive world of internet hacking and political commentary. Dr. Mann is, at most, collateral damage and Mr. Steyn can hardly be sued for indifference. Malice is not indifference.
The emotional distress is the kicker and tells us the case is about Mann's psychological and emotional state, about his ego. I'd advise him to remember Oscar Wilde's mistake. Very few people are aware of this issue, living normal lives. Why fan the flames? (No global warming pun intended)
#24 Posted by Abu Nudnik, CJR on Fri 27 Jul 2012 at 11:39 AM
PS: My comparison above of the threatened National Review case to the Irving case obviously does not suggest Steyn is a Holocaust denier. My comparison of this case to the Wilde case does not suggest Mann is playing around with the son of the Marquis of Queensbury. That's how ridiculous the Sandusky comparison is.
PPS: Does the law in the prevailing district consider the threat of a lawsuit without an actual suit following to be actionable harassment?
#25 Posted by Abu Nudnik, CJR on Fri 27 Jul 2012 at 11:48 AM
It looks the crap is about to hit proverbial AGW fan...
Anthony Watts has suspended publishing on his blog, cancelled his vacation and announced an upcoming MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT that he says"will attract a broad global interest due to its controversial and unprecedented nature". The announcement is due at around high noon on Sunday.
I'm guessing the remaining Climategate files have been decrypted. Or maybe an even bigger scandal from within the Warmingist cabal..
Whatever it is... It's going to be interesting
#26 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 27 Jul 2012 at 04:29 PM
(In the spirit of the journalism "author's" copious use of "quotes")
So... The "scholar's" "attorney" doesn't bluff... I "think" both may live to regret their "over-reach"... And Steyn will tack two more "varmint pelts" on his "wall".
(Whoah! Writing like a "journalism scholar" is hard on your "pinkie"!)
#27 Posted by Nearsited, CJR on Fri 27 Jul 2012 at 07:52 PM
"So can everyone labeled a "global warming denier" sue Mann and his ilk for the obvious insinuation of an equivalence with racist deniers of the Holocaust?"
Since you brought it up, can every member of feminist movement sue Rush Limbaugh and other right wing shock artists for the obvious insinuation behind the label 'feminazi'?
"Anthony Watts has suspended publishing on his blog"
He'll be missed... by denialnazis.
#28 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 27 Jul 2012 at 07:56 PM
@ padikiller.
Another theory is the new BEST results will be out next week with a serious kick in the eye to Watts, so Watts had to cancel his vacation in order to pre-empt a yet further debunking and weaseling out of his statement that he'd accept whatever the BEST results were.
But, given how the US has had some seriously bad weather this year and US public opinion is siding with there definitely being something to AGW, it could be Climategate3 in order to distract from physical reality, but I'd expect them to be selectively cherry picked and lied about like during the last two rounds of whack-a-mole.
#29 Posted by J Bowers, CJR on Sat 28 Jul 2012 at 07:35 AM
Watts is keeping pretty much mum on this one, though he has updated to say that his upcoming announcement is unrelated to FOIA, so I think that Climategate 3.0 is probably unlikely.
As for his position on AGW, I largely share it.
There is no doubt that we've seen a recent global warming trend over the last 50 years (though not in North America). But there has been no proof that this trend is directly related to changing atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Indeed, while the data indisputably indicates a 50 year warming trend, the data also indicates 1000 and 2000 year cooling trends. The Vikings farmed Greenland. This reality isn't going anywhere, even if it offends liberal theology.
The name of the computer model that can accurately predict the increase in the average global temperature due to inreasing atmospheric CO2 concentration is____________________.
The atmospheric CO2 concentration that will maintain a steady average global temperature is ________________ ppm.
If anyone can provide defensible and scientically sound resposes to these questions, I'll be the most vocal Warmingist of them all.
Until then, you guys need to asking yourselves why you can't fill in these rather fundamental blanks.
The ideal average global temperature is _________________ K.
#30 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 28 Jul 2012 at 10:22 AM
I'm pretty sure Mann is a loon and a crook.
Never mind that. That a stupid, semi-literate and utterly one sided piece like this could be published by the Columbia Journalism Review is appalling. Not a surprise, because I have long known journalism and its schools to be wholly taken over by the left, but still, appalling.
#31 Posted by f, CJR on Sat 28 Jul 2012 at 11:43 AM
"But there has been no proof that this trend is directly related to changing atmospheric CO2 concentrations."
Why "proof"? Science is probabilistic. Even the hockey stick has error margins.
"Indeed, while the data indisputably indicates a 50 year warming trend, the data also indicates 1000 and 2000 year cooling trends."
That's why it's called a hockey stick. How's the sun been doing over the last 50 years? How about those volcanic aerosols?
"The Vikings farmed Greenland."
Vikings subsistence farmed small areas of Greenland in the south west for a short period. Nobody's ever discounted regional warming, it's even in the hockey stick provided you don't erase the error margins in an attempt to make it look like something it ain't.
#32 Posted by J Bowers, CJR on Sat 28 Jul 2012 at 01:15 PM
Repetition is the only way addressing obstinance.
The name of the computer model that can accurately predict the increase in the average global temperature due to a particular increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration is __________________.
The particular concetration of atmospheric CO2 that will keep the average global temperature constant is ____________ ppm.
The ideal average global temperature is _______ K.
You give scientifically sound responses, and I will be the most fevent AGW activist anyone has ever seen.
If you can't fill in these rather fundamental blanks, the you should be asking yourselves why you keep drinking Warmingism Kool-Aid.
#33 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 28 Jul 2012 at 01:36 PM
If we accept the data propounded in the Name of the "Cause" (Mike Mann's own word for Warmingism) then we are talking about an increase in the average global temperature from 288.0 K to 288.8 K over a period of 150 years. Or less than 0.28%. This miniscule increase is outside the margin of error of the thermometers used to take the data.
As Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever noted in resigning from the APA over its AGW stance, this increase in temperature, if it occurred, conincided with the single greates elevation of the human condition that history has ever witnessed.
As for the "Hockey Stick" - we are dealing with a clear case of academic dishonesty. Creating the hockety stick requires (a) claiming that tree ring temperature proxies are innaccurate in recent years (conveniently enough when there exists a thermomter record to splice into the graph to "hide the decline" in the proxy temperature record, (b) conteding nonetheless that the proxy record that has bee shown to innaccurate in recent history somehow reflects an accurate past record, (c) arbitrarily selecting a date at which to substitute actual temperatures for the proxy record to further the "Cause" ("Mike's Nature Trick") and finally (d) selecting the units of the graph to render a 0.3 % increase in temperature into a crazy Chicken Little graph.
#34 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 28 Jul 2012 at 02:10 PM
"The name of the computer model that can accurately predict the increase in the average global temperature due to a particular increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration is __________________."
Loaded question. There is no one single computer model that can satisfy your demand. Estimates are based on ensemble runs. It appears you like to set yourself up for disappointment. "All models are wrong, but some are useful."
"The particular concetration of atmospheric CO2 that will keep the average global temperature constant is ____________ ppm."
Another loaded question. It's entirely dependent on orbital forcing, insolation, and other forcings such as volcanic activity.
"The ideal average global temperature is..." ~30C +/- 5C, with a maximum of ~40C before crop photonythesis loses efficiency due to stomata closing to avoid too much evaporation, and the enzymes involved denature. Ask any Midwest farmer.
Naturally, if the crops had thousands of years to evolve then it wouldn't be such a problem, but they don't have. It's highly unlikely they'll ever evolve to survive combustion.
Large scale farming - it's what helped us move from being a species of hunter-gatherers and scavengers to becoming civilised.
#35 Posted by J Bowers, CJR on Sat 28 Jul 2012 at 03:00 PM
Estimates are based on ensemble runs.
Ah, yes... The Ole' Semantic Dodge The Issue Game...
OK. I'll play...
"The ensemble of computer models that can accurately predict the increase in the average global temperature due to a particular increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration uses the following computer models __________________ in the following manner ___________________."
How about filling in these blanks, then?
"The ideal average global temperature is..." ~30C +/- 5C
Says.... Who? Where are you coming up with this "stomata closing" thing? On Earth, the warmer it gets on land or in the oceans, the more photosynthesis there is, as long as there is water. And generally the hotter it is, the wetter it is.
Indeed, what could make plants grow faster than heat and water? Wait, I know! Doubling the atmospheric CO2 would, right?
Another loaded question. It's [the average global temperature] entirely dependent on orbital forcing, insolation, and other forcings such as volcanic activity.
So HOW do we know that current temperature increase isn't due to one of these "forcings" you describe instead of the greenhouse effect in a the increase of atmospheric CO2 concentration from 0.028% to 0.38%? What about the feedback mechanisms that render the remarkable stability in the global temperature record? Clouds? Water vapor? Convection?
#36 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 28 Jul 2012 at 03:51 PM
J Bowers wrote: Vikings subsistence farmed small areas of Greenland in the south west for a short period. Nobody's ever discounted regional warming,
padikiller responds: Yeah, but data indicates that the Medieval Warm Period was a global phenomenon, not a case of "regional warming" Even Warmingist-in-Chief Phil Jones acknowledges this reality.
What I'm not seeing in any of the AGW defense (and what would be most persuasive to me) is proof of causation (not mere correlation) between atmospheric CO2 concentration and rising global temperatures. If the feedback mechanisms are positive, then a "runaway" greenhouse condition could loom... But if the feedback mechanisms are negative (as they certainly seem to be, given the stability in the earth's temperature) then this is just an anticapitalist tempest in a teapot.
The Medieval Warm Period breaks the link in the correlation and causation between CO2 and temperature. So does the Little Ice Age.
Given the minor contribution CO2 gives to the earth's greenhouse effect, I have a hard time believing that an increase of 0.01% in CO2 concentration over 200 years can have any measurable effect on temperature.
However, if somebody can show me conving proof, I'll acknowledge the reality. But that would only get me halfway into the AGW camp.
What makes warming "bad?. Biologically speaking, warm = good.
We talk of the purported detrimental effect of warming on polar bears and other polar species, but what of the detrimental effects of cooling on tropical species?
If the temperature continues to rise (though it hasn't risen significantly in the last 15 years) it seems logical that for every acre of land rendered barren due to rising temperatures, another acre (or maybe more) will become fertile.
Assuming that warming is significant, and assuming we can set the global thermostat, as the Warmingists claim we can, where should we set it?
These are fundamental questions. Before we set about wrecking economies and dictating international policy, we should have the answers to these questions.
#37 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 28 Jul 2012 at 05:59 PM
"Yeah, but data indicates that the Medieval Warm Period was a global phenomenon"
No. it doesn't. You confuse spatial with temporal.
iSays.... Who? Where are you coming up with this "stomata closing" thing?
The scientific literature, not the political literature.
"On Earth, the warmer it gets on land or in the oceans, the more photosynthesis there is"
Get over your cognitive dissonance.
"We talk of the purported detrimental effect of warming on polar bears ..."
Gish Gallop.
#38 Posted by J Bowers, CJR on Sun 29 Jul 2012 at 01:20 AM
"Yeah, but data indicates that the Medieval Warm Period was a global phenomenon"
No, really, it doesn't. CO2science is not a reliable resource.
"What I'm not seeing in any of the AGW defense (and what would be most persuasive to me) is proof of causation "
There you go with "proof" again.
"However, if somebody can show me conving proof, "
And there again.
"Assuming that warming is significant, and assuming we can set the global thermostat, as the Warmingists claim we can, where should we set it?"
Within the threshold of crop health. It really is a no-brainer.
"If the temperature continues to rise (though it hasn't risen significantly in the last 15 years) "
But the last 10 years were warmer than any decade out of the last 100 years. Honestly, stop and think.
"Assuming that warming is significant, and assuming we can set the global thermostat, as the Warmingists claim we can, where should we set it?"
We can't particularly "set" the global thermostat, but we could at least attempt to take it a level condusive to our food supply. But if we continue pumping out millions of years' worth of naturally sequestered carbon into the atmosphere in the space of decades, why would you think we're not setting the thermostat to be hotter anyway? You do know that the planet tries to equalise temperature globally, right? The poles will get significantly warmer than the equator, yes? Do you know what albedo is, and its effect on our climate?
#39 Posted by J Bowers, CJR on Sun 29 Jul 2012 at 03:12 AM
padikiller asked: What is the name of the computer model (or "ensemble") of computer models that can accurately predict the average global temperature given a particular increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration?
J Bowers replied: ________
padikiller stated: There hasn't been any global warming for 15 years.
J Bowers replied: Yeah, but don't talk about that. Talk about something else.
padikiller wondered: Where are coming up with this "stomata closing" claim?
J Bowers replied: _________
padikiller asked: Where is the proof that raising CO2 concentration by 0.01% over 200 years can have any measurable effect on global temperature, given the minorcontribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect compared to other gases.
J Bowers replied: Don't ask for proof. We haven't got any.
padikiller stated: The warmer it gets, the more photosythesis there is.
J Bowers replied: You're stupid. Nanny nanny boo boo.
Etc., etc., etc.
Just like debating any religionwith any True Believer.
All they have, aside from evasion, redirection, ad hominem and invective is a whole lot of nothing.
#40 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 29 Jul 2012 at 08:42 AM
Thimbles blithered: He'll [Anthony Watts] be missed... by denialnazis.
padikiller responds: Watts isn't a "denialist". He doesn't claim that AGW isn't possible, just that it isn't documented and (as Muller still notes, despite his "conversion") that AGW proponents exaggerate claims and manipulate data to suit their political and economic agendas.
It might be (like Muller) that Watts has decided to come down partly on the AGW side because he's been persuaded by new information. Such an outcome would surprise, but not shock me. Indeed, if he (or anyone else, for that matter) has the data to support a conclusion, then I'll convert to Warmingism myself.
#41 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 29 Jul 2012 at 12:04 PM
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Aww-Hell-Not-This-Shit-Again/146608455371180
Moving on..
http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/obama_romney_science_debate_pr.php#comment-63404
"The name of the computer model that can accurately predict the increase in the average global temperature due to increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration is _________________________."
Not relevant. The gist of what's going to happen to the climate does not require .000001° degree accuracy of temperature. Your own words from the link above:
"Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Sure. Does increasing CO2 contribute to atmospheric warming? Unquestionably."
And that's all you really need to know. If you think that human caused CO2 is warming the planet, then you'll need to have a pretty good reason to question the findings based on that assumption.
"Are there negative feedback mechanisms that work to modulate atmospheric temperature - i.e., to counteract the warming effect of increasing CO2 concentrations? Almost certainly, given the remarkable stability in the global temperature.
How do these feedback mechanisms, if they exist, work? We don't know."
Here's the thing, if you are betting human civilization on a feedback to which you have no name, to which you have no understanding, you'd better know what its capacity is.
Or the name.. you can fill it in here "_________________________."
#42 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 29 Jul 2012 at 07:51 PM
PS. We've done the discussion on climate models before:
http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/the_heatwave_debate.php#comment-62989
and I highly recommend the AGU link there, but if you want further reading see:
http://skepticalscience.com/how-do-climate-models-work.html
#43 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 29 Jul 2012 at 07:59 PM
Interesting coincidence. While deniers above cite Muller with approval, he comes out and admits that he was on the wrong side of the argument.
So sad. He was the deniers Great White Hope.
#44 Posted by garhighway, CJR on Mon 30 Jul 2012 at 12:36 PM
Is it just me, or does the "Watts doesn't deny global warming exists..." argument sound a lot like the old Tobacco Institute position, which admitted correlation between smoking and liung disease but not causation?
Of course, that wouldn't be a coincidence, would it? Tthere's a lot fo crossover between the tobacco apologists and professional deniers.
#45 Posted by garhighway, CJR on Mon 30 Jul 2012 at 01:06 PM
From Thimbles' link: "However, the big questions, like "Is human activity warming the planet?", don't even require a model."
And there it is...
A whole lot of nothing...
One more time!
The name of the computer model that can accurately predict the increase in the average global temperature due to a particular concentration of atmospheric CO2 is ______________.
The reason you guys can't fill in the blank is because such a model doesn't exist. The article to which Thimbles linked takes about 30 paragraphs to come out and say it, but it does get there eventually.
The truly BIG questions (for me and for many skeptics) are:
1. How much warming, if any, will rising CO2 concentrations cause? Show me the way you calculate this number. SHOW YOUR WORK.
2. Is this warming a good thing or a bad thing? Who says warming is bad? Warmth is generally a very good thing, biologically speaking. Cold is generally a very bad thing. If we really are capable of setting the global thermostat, why not warm the Earth even more? Most of the Earth's species are tropical. Why stress them with cooling?
3. Assuming for the sake of argument that warming is detrimental and also assuming for the sake of argument that it is possible to cool the global climate, is it cost-effective to do so? Will it cost more to cool the Earth than it will to adjust to higher temperatures?
What you won't find anywhere are definitive answers to these questions... When they are found, and if they support the Warmingists claims, I'll be a convert. Until then.... I'm not.
Setting a global policy based on speculation and fear is just stupid. What we need are answers. Data and good science - DEMONSTRABLY good science - not just Chicken Little suppositions.
garhighway wrote: "Is it just me, or does the "Watts doesn't deny global warming exists..." argument sound a lot like the old Tobacco Institute position, which admitted correlation between smoking and liung disease but not causation?"
padikiller responds: And is it just me, or does the "Earth on fire" schtick sound like the cold fusion, phlogiston, caloric, luminiferous aether and blood-letting?
You can't blame skeptics here. The AGW camp is rife with corruption. By Phil Jones' own admission, the IPCC authors were chosen to appease developing countries and by his own estimation, half of these author are incompetent.
Why should skeptics accept a report when half the authors (according the the Lead Author) are incompetent?
Scientists (at least honest, good ones) don't conspire to delete data and to exclude critics from the debate. The AGW cabal makes a hobby of this behavior.
A professional and truly "dispassionate" scientist who honestly believes that global warming is an imminent threat to humanity, doesn't private write to his cabal that he wished that the globe would actually warm as he predicted in order to "wipe the smug grins" off the faces of his critics.
Why would a scientist who honestly believe that global warming is dangerous, what to see it happen to fulfil some sort of weak-kneed emotional need?
Etc... etc.. etc...
#46 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 30 Jul 2012 at 04:29 PM
I'll take just one point from above, as I am pressed for time.
On "warm versus cold: what's better?", I would first say that in general, the planet is indifferent. neither is intrinsically good or bad. But we aren't looking at the planet in isolation. We are looking at it after several billion people have populated it and built a planet's worth of infrastructure. That infrastructure exists where it si because those locations have fit well given the current behavior of the planet, whether that encompasses sea level, growing patterns, moisture patterns and more. We farm where crops grow. (And we build ag infrastructure like rail lines and grain elevators where the farms are.) We live near the sea. Change the environmental inputs, and some of those decisions look very, very bad, and unwinding them is very, very expensive, if they can be unwound at all.
If we were arriving at this planet now, and wanted to terraform it to best suit us, would we pick different values to design to? Yeah, maybe. But so what? That's not the choice we have.
#47 Posted by garhighway, CJR on Mon 30 Jul 2012 at 05:11 PM
garhighway wrote: I'll take just one point from above, as I am pressed for time.
padikiller responds: I don't know what you could with my other "points" if you had the time, since they are simply plain facts. But if you get more time, I'd like to hear a cogent response.
garhighway wrote: Change the environmental inputs, and some of those decisions look very, very bad,
padikiller responds: Says who? Look "very, very bad" how, exactly?
Why don't they look very, very, good?
You're just running in circles and begging the question. You are presupposing that climate change will have adverse effects.
Where is the data? Where are the models? What are there uncertainties?
And again.... What is the cost of "unwinding the decisions" versus "lowering the global thermostat"? Which will cost more? How much?
You guys have nothing but speculation and fear. We need science.
We don't need an Indian railroad engineer stuffing IPCC reports full of false stories of glacial melting and desert encroachment to appease the anticapitalist agendas of developing countries.
We don't need self-proclaimed grant-sucking "scientists" playing "hide the data" and "ban the skeptic" to gain the emotional satisfaction of seeing global warming wipe the "smug grins" from the faces of the skeptics he seeks to exclude:
"The other paper by MM is just garbage - as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well - frequently as I see it. I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !" - Email from Phil Jones to Mike Mann
"I hope you're not right about the lack of warming lasting till about 2020... ...I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying where's the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away" - Email from Phil Jones to Tim Johns and Chris Folland
The truth survives scrutiny. Warmingism is characterized by an acute aversion to scrutiny.
It's a religion, in its current state.
#48 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 30 Jul 2012 at 05:43 PM
"The truth survives scrutiny. Warmingism is characterized by an acute aversion to scrutiny."
Sorry but denialnazis are to scrutiny what you are to a reasoned debate.
Take for instance your "From Thimbles' link: "However, the big questions, like "Is human activity warming the planet?", don't even require a model."
And there it is...
A whole lot of nothing..."
I don't know what you thought that quote proved ("ooo because she said we don't need models to answer 'are humans warming the planet?' that means she doesn't have models that show humans are warming the planet. QED a-holes!"
Are you that obtuse?)
People who actually read the link would find this.
"Climate models aren't perfect, but they are doing remarkably well. They pass the tests of predicting the past, and go even further. For example, scientists don't know what causes El Niño, a phenomenon in the Pacific Ocean that affects weather worldwide. There are some hypotheses on what oceanic conditions can lead to an El Niño event, but nobody knows what the actual trigger is. Consequently, there's no way to program El Niños into a GCM. But they show up anyway - the models spontaneously generate their own El Niños, somehow using the basic principles of fluid dynamics to simulate a phenomenon that remains fundamentally mysterious to us.
Also, history has shown us that when climate models make mistakes, they tend to be too stable, and underestimate the potential for abrupt changes. Take the Arctic sea ice: just a few years ago, GCMs were predicting it would completely melt around 2100. Now, the estimate has been revised to 2030, as the ice melts faster than anyone anticipated"
There are lots of names of models and tye discussion of their software here, but again we don't need to know every detail perfectly in order to act based on the 'very likely' predictions.
If you live in Colorado, you don't know what day, hour, minute it will snow in the winter but you don't let that stop you from buying snow tires and you don't wait until the last minute to put them on. Unless you deny the idea it will snow in winter, you will take mitigating action.
The burden of proof has more than been met as to whether carbon has a thermal effect on our climate and a chemical effect on our ocean - even you admit it.
You claim it might not be substantial, that the effect might even be beneficial. That could be true if the effect stabilized at warm. If the effect is generated by gas, and humans are releasing gas, and the gas sinks on earth -which are sensitive to temperature - are triggered into releasing gas, then we aren't talking about Hawaii Canada. We're talking about 'mother of all extinctions'. We've seen these geologic changes in the past and we're setting them up now.
Our winter is fricken coming.
So, given that, do you think we should attempt to mitigate this or wait until we've got the climate model just right so that it lines up with the disaster we've done nothing to stop?
#49 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 30 Jul 2012 at 08:34 PM
For Brainard, from here, an interesting read.
http://sharifflab.com/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/03/MarkowitzShariff2012.pdf
#50 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 30 Jul 2012 at 09:23 PM
Thimbles regurgitates Chicken Little speculation: If the effect is generated by gas, and humans are releasing gas, and the gas sinks on earth -which are sensitive to temperature - are triggered into releasing gas, then we aren't talking about Hawaii Canada. We're talking about 'mother of all extinctions'.
padikiller responds: And "if" little green men invade the Earth, we're screwed too.
Where is the data to support any of your claims? What are the models? What are the probabilities? The uncertainties?
How about a little of that "science" thing?
#51 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 30 Jul 2012 at 11:50 PM
"padikiller responds: And "if" little green men invade the Earth, we're screwed too."
Thanks for the nonsense.
Moving on.
Since we're talking about Mueller
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/30/richard-muller-get-rid-of-coal-power-to-halt-global-warming/
Moving on again.
Say there's a fire in the forest. The forest borders your cabin. Your wife says "Call for help."
You answer "But dear, this could be good when it turns dark. We're always complaining about the cold, and now we'll have a fire and it won't cost us a match! Convenient!"
"But dear," says your wife, "What if our cabin catches on fire? We'll lose our home! Can we do something about the fire!"
"As long as the fire stays over there," says you, "We have nothing to worry about. In fact, I'm going to light a few more fires so we'll have a few ready for our barbecue tonight."
"Honey," says your wife, "How is the fire going to stay over there while you are lighting fires over here and doing nothing to stop the fire over there? Fire spreads. It grows. You are raising the level of fire not reducing it. Do you not want to save our cabin?"
"Save our cabin? From fire?" you say, "Tut tut, my love, next you'll be talking about little green men threatening to reduce our house to ashes. Unless you can produce data to support your claims, unless you show models, probabilities, and uncertainties which indicate the likelihood of our house burning down in an uncontrolled forest fire, I refuse to believe that these flames licking my face mean us any harm. And I'm sure as hell not going to let it spoil my barbecue."
Your wife takes the car keys and walks quietly to the car as you hum "I'm singing in the rain" while the forest burns.
The next morning, she finds the smoldering remains of your cabin and a body that looked like it had been unearthed from Pompeii. Around your neck was an apron bearing the half singed message "Kiss the cook".
And your wife thought about how lucky she was that she could drive away.
#52 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 31 Jul 2012 at 12:58 AM
On an unrelated note.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20413-warmer-oceans-release-co2-faster-than-thought.html
#53 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 31 Jul 2012 at 01:01 AM
No data. Just parables from the Prophet of Warmingism.
No answers given, no questions tolerated.
Preach on it, Brother!
#54 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 31 Jul 2012 at 08:39 AM
So, padi, you come HERE for your science info? And you get testy if other posters don't bring you the science you want, to your doorstep, in these comments pages? That's...odd.
Wouldn't the more logical course of conduct be for you to go places where actual climate science is discussed by actual climate scientists? They like talking about this stuff, and they really know their science. No rogue weathermen, no tobacco lobbyists.
Try here:
http://realclimate.org/
#55 Posted by garhighway, CJR on Tue 31 Jul 2012 at 12:56 PM
"No data. Just parables from the Prophet of Warmingism.
No answers given, no questions tolerated."
Padi, data doesn't make a difference to you. I tried talking data with you and you started talking about ouija boards when you got cornered.
You're a lost cause.
People who want to see data will click the links. People who want to see padi look like a joke will read these posts.
#56 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 31 Jul 2012 at 01:59 PM
garhighway wrote: "Wouldn't the more logical course of conduct be for you to go places where actual climate science is discussed by actual climate scientists? They like talking about this stuff, and they really know their science. No rogue weathermen, no tobacco lobbyists.
Try here:
http://realclimate.org/
padikiller responds: realclimate.org is operated by Environmental Media Services.
From wikipedia:
"EMS was founded in 1994 by Arlie Schardt, a former journalist, former communications director for Al Gore's 2000 Presidential campaign, and former head of the Environmental Defense Fund during the 1970s."
Yeah...
There's nothing but "dispassionate science" going on there on K Street, right?
No chance of finding any lobbyists running around in the EMS office...
Nice try, gar, but no cigar.
#57 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 31 Jul 2012 at 03:40 PM
In the time it took you to do that research you could have gone there and seen for yourself what scientists talking to scientists looks like. (Granted, there are citizens and hobbyists dropping in, too, but so what?)
What terrible thing would happen to you if you gazed upon the site? Retina burns? Brain freeze? What do you have to lose?
#58 Posted by garhighway, CJR on Wed 1 Aug 2012 at 12:47 PM
I am not interested in visiting a propaganda site run by an environmental advocacy group. I don't trust it.
That said. Data is data, from any source.
If you can provide a link to actual, verifiable data on realclimate.org or anywhere else, I'll accept it.
The problem Warmingists have is an utter lack of data.
1. Show me the data (good data). 2. Show me the model that accepts the data and produces accurate predicitons. 3. Finally, assuming that you do steps 1 and 2, show me the money... Show me the cost-benefit analysis.
You do these and I'll be burning up the phone to DC to shut down coal plants.
Until then...
I think you guys need to be asking yourselves why you "believe" in a purported "science" when you can't produce a single datum upon request or link to a mathematical explanation of how the Prophecy of Warmingism works.
I have provided (and you guys have utterly ignored in then Name of Warmingism) incontrovertible plain proof that half of the IPCC authors (according to no less that the Chief IPCC Author) are incompetent and were selected not on merit, but instead to appease developing countries.
How can you defend such a corrupt process and label it science? Answer: You can't. Thus your silence.
I have provided a direct statement from Warmingist-in-Chief Phil Jones wherein he lays out his plain hope to see MORE global warming in order to enjoy the emotional experience of seeing the "smug grins" wiped from the faces of skeptics.
How in the HELL can you guys stand behind this crap?
I provided proof that Jones and Mann plainly stated their intent to exclude skeptical papers from consideration even if they had to corrupt the peer review process itself.
????????????????
There a million other documented falsehoods, omissions and errors in the AGW accepted literature. Glaciers that aren't actually receding. Deserts that aren't actually encroaching. Tree ring proxy temperature records that aren't actually rising. Global temperatures that have actually increased since 1998. Etc.. etc.. etc.
And what do we hear from you guys?
Parables. Diversion. Evasion.
The types of responses you get when you try to debate any True Believer of any religion.
#59 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 1 Aug 2012 at 03:24 PM
Padi swims in a sea of climate data, but because it is presented by people Padi doesn't like (like the people at RealClimate), Padi pretends it doesn't exist. After all, climate science, being actual science, is all about data. Most deniers, being about politics and spin, are about cherrypicking quotes ("glaciers gone by 2035!") and the like.
But if you want data and science, Padi, here you go. We can both pretend you'll read any of it.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/whatsnew.html (Papers on paleoclimatology collected by the National Climatic Data Center, part of NOAA, who I am sure Padi will find a reason to ignore.)
http://tamino.wordpress.com/climate-data-links/ (A collection of data links on surface temperature, atmospheric temperature, sea ice, CO2 concentration and more.)
And of course, there's the IPCC report itself, which you might be surprised to learn is just chock-full of data. I understand that because the IPCC scientists weren't vetted by the Heartland Institute you have doubts about their qualifications, but hey: it's just 600 of the leading climate scientists in the world.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/contents.html
The link is to AR4. if you want to wait a couple of years to pretend to read the report you can wait for AR5.
So there's a mountain of data for you. I'll anxiously await your next justification for ignoring it all.
#60 Posted by garhighway, CJR on Wed 1 Aug 2012 at 04:25 PM
The article asserts, "More often than not, though, it is conservative/libertarian writers harassing climate scientists,."
Wow, now that is an unjustified leap in faith. How many times have scientists who disagree with climate alarmism been called "deniers" or even worse, even death threats. The regular, daily assault on climate skeptics is obviously far worse than almost anything against scientists who support the alarm.
Tom Harris
http://climatescienceinternational.org/
#61 Posted by Tom Harris, CJR on Thu 2 Aug 2012 at 02:16 AM