-
Suing NASA and UVA
August 19, 2011 | 58 comments
-
Facts on Frack Attackers
August 3, 2011 | 71 comments
-
Indefensible
July 27, 2011 | 59 comments
-
Inhibiting an Oil and Gas Boom
July 22, 2011 | 81 comments
-
Christie’s Blind Spot
June 15, 2011 | 51 comments
The Environmental Spectator
Mann Acts
Dr. Michael Mann seeks the help of other Climategate players to prevent access to his University of Virginia emails.
Dr. Michael Mann, who under a lesser title at University of Virginia created the famed “hockey stick” chart of 20th-century temperature escalations while leveling the Medieval Warm Period, has enlisted a Climategate Cavalcade of Stars to help him enter as an interested party in a lawsuit in which my organization, American Tradition Institute, seeks to get his old UVA emails and data.
Early this month Mann, who is now at Pennsylvania State University, had his lawyers ask for permission to intervene in ATI’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against UVA. Our request seeks correspondence between Mann and 30-plus other global warming activist scientists who form much of the cabal that created the various predictive reports of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The university, buttressed by the urgings of groups including ACLU, People for the American Way, Union of Concerned Scientists, and American Association of University Professors, is withholding the meaningful documents ATI seeks. Mann himself said the few thousand documents UVA turned over so far were, more or less, meaningless “boilerplate.” ATI lawyers David Schnare and Chris Horner (also an AmSpec contributor), under a court-order, will be allowed to identify some of the remaining emails the university believes should be kept from public view so as to reduce the number the judge will have to examine, and then ATI and UVA will argue which ones should be disclosed in a court hearing this fall. Dr. Schnare and Mr. Horner are under clear orders that whatever they see they must forever keep confidential unless the court later orders those emails released.
In his attempt to intervene, Mann has called upon friends in academe to bolster his claim that, despite using a taxpayer-funded email system at UVA, that he has the right to prevent the public from seeing what he says are “private” emails. The concept that government-owned, or “public,” does not mean “private” is inconceivable to him (see Exhibit 2, here).
His appeal to the Prince William County court where ATI’s case is being heard included supportive letters (Exhibit 6, here) to UVA president Teresa Sullivan from four of his cohorts in Climategate or hockey stick creation fame. Each pleader registers objection to UVA providing “personal” or “private” emails to ATI under its existing court-authorized agreement. And amusingly enough, each of his four backers has his or her own credibility problems.
The first complainant is Rosanne D’Arrigo, a tree-ring reconstructor at the Earth Institute at Columbia University, who told Sullivan in her letter that “these are personal emails not relevant to valid scientific concerns.” Plucky, D’Arrigo is famous for explaining to the National Academy of Sciences that “cherry picking” is necessary if you want to make cherry pie. And as for what she thought of that “divergence problem” with tree-ring proxies: Pshaw! (see pages 11 & 12).
Next standing behind Mann is Dr. Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, who when last we checked was still on the outside looking in at the National Academy of Sciences “Fight Club,” despite his Climategate-revealed plans to “beat the crap out of” somewhat skeptical fellow climatologist Pat Michaels. Those sentiments ran afoul of LLNL’s “missions and values” which required their publicly funded employees to show “respect for individuals” and “treat each other with dignity.” He also had erased statements that stated global warming was not attributable to human activities from the eighth chapter of the 1995 UN IPCC report, which also set off the integrity alarms.
Santer also fails to give up the idea that his government-funded email communications belong to taxpayers, not himself. His letter to UVA’s Sullivan (of course) does not note his IPCC deletions as he explains the integrity of his and Mann’s “science,” but it does characterize their emails as “personal.” “Professor Mann’s only ‘transgression’ is that he has performed cutting-edge research in the public and national interest (emphasis mine),” Santer wrote to Sullivan. Yep, that’s “personal” all right!
The third prestigious scientist (just ask him) supporting Mann is Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. His Climategate fame is derived from his concern about a “travesty” that “we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment,” in addition to his other failed predictions such as future hurricane horrors while administering discipline as one of the scientific journal brown shirts. In writing to Sullivan, Trenberth makes sure she knows how “distinguished” and “prominent” he is while he urges her to hide Mann’s emails from public scrutiny, citing “academic freedom.” We ask, can there be “taxpayer freedom” to opt out of the financing of secretive scientists’ research?
The final alarmist to push for Sullivan to keep Mann’s work under wraps is University of Massachusetts scientist Raymond Bradley, who co-authored the “hockey stick”, which should suffice in explanation of his support for Mann. But just for amusement it’s also noteworthy that Bradley’s letter to Sullivan refers her to his new book “Global Warming and Political Intimidation,” in which he cites Ben Santer as a victim!
But that’s not all. Bradley, so outraged by intrusion on to principles of academic secrecy when exercised by ATI, was unhindered by such sentiments in his own inquiry (with USA Today reporter Dan Vergano) of Professor Edward Wegman at George Mason University, another Virginia state educational institution. Bradley had accused Wegman of plagiarizing his work (more meaningless “boilerplate,” according to Climate Audit, irrelevant to Wegman’s findings) in his 2006 report that exposed statistical problems with Mann’s work. While George Mason investigated his allegation, Bradley violated a confidentiality requirement about forwarding Wegman’s work to third parties. And as Climate Audit’s Steve McIntyre has shown, Bradley is selective in who he gets mad at for plagiarism (friends are okay), and of course, self-examination of his own reproduction of others’ work is non-existent.
In his attempt to intervene in the ATI/UVA case, Mann also makes his own plea to Sullivan and the university lawyers. “Allowing the indiscriminate release of these materials will cause damage to reputations and harm principles of academic freedom,” he wrote.
Fortunately neither side — ATI nor UVA — believes in an “indiscriminate” release. But in that one statement Mann provides reason enough for the records about his work and the company he keeps to be made public.
About the Author
Paul Chesser is executive director for the American Tradition Institute and a senior fellow for the Commonwealth Foundation for Public Policy Alternatives. The views he expresses do not necessarily reflect the views of these organizations.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (72) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Paul Chesser
More Articles From The Environmental Spectator
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/09/14/mann-acts
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Chris| 9.13.11 @ 6:23PM
I'm confused.
I thought it was pretty well settled law that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy when sending a work e-mail. These mails were sent using the employer's e-mail account and possibly the employer's computer (not stated but possible).
So, unless the school is fighting for THEIR privacy what's the contest? Why are the e-mails of some low level shlub in accounting fair game for any busy body in HR but this jackass is claiming some form of immunity?
Additionally, what is he hiding? Science is supposed to advance by open, honest inquiry. Show you work, just like the teacher said in every test.
So why is Mann suddenly gone all hush-hush? What is he afraid that we'll find?
If he did honest science there would be nothing but honest science to find.
Darin| 9.14.11 @ 6:10AM
Your last statement is key. His science is not honest and he knows it. Rather than face the consequences, he'll fight disclosure.
Mike D.| 9.14.11 @ 7:21AM
Never has been about science. I thought the advancement of science was working on a theory or proving a theory and putting the paper up for review by peers. Yet this bilge is still being taught in schools as fact.
Drunken Sailor| 9.14.11 @ 10:00AM
I compare global warming scientest to Cryptozoologist. They decide on a theory then try to devise the facts to prove their theory, insted of following the facts to find the correct theory.
SC Mike| 9.14.11 @ 6:38AM
As an employee of a taxpayer-funded entity, UVA, whose work was supported by taxpayer-funded grants, Mann should acknowledge that all emails except those dealing with purely personal issues (performance evaluations, salary administration, and other HR correspondence) should be available to the public.
Chalkdust| 9.14.11 @ 7:41AM
After working 37 years in a institution of higher learning (emphasis on institution), I can state that a large collection of self-serving, dishonest numskulls exist at each and every one.
Solar flares, ocean currents and large volcano eruptions have always control the earth's weather, not puny man.
Anthony| 9.14.11 @ 7:58AM
All these leftist bastards are frauds. Mann is a leftist hack who has hidden behind the curtin of academia to perpetuate this fraud of all frauds, anthropogenic global warming.
Of course this hack of a scientist wants to keep these emails private. They, like the emails revealed from East Anglia, clearly demonstrate a deliberate conpiracy to hide data, fudge data, and create false computer models, all with public money.
So where is Algore on this disgraceful attempt to hide "scientific" information? Where is Algore's demand for academic integrity?
As said so often, the left are intellectually and morally bankrupt. Mann should be in a federal prison for misuse of funds, and Algore should be sharing a cell with him.
It's long past time we kicked the left out of our vital institutions that they have so corrupted.
faxmatter| 9.14.11 @ 9:22PM
It is so true that they need to be ejected, but what is the mechanism to do it?
steve in tulsa| 9.14.11 @ 8:06AM
The way he weighted the Yarmal tree sample by throwing out the 29 normal trees and keeping the single freak tree he falisfied his data. He created his hockey stick out of cherry picked falsified data and once we see the evidence of the rest of his malfeasence he will be fired as he deserves. These hoaxers for grant dollars have reached the end of their lies. You cannot hide the fact the globe has been cooling for over ten years.
DaveD| 9.14.11 @ 8:23AM
The question, asked previously, is, what are they afraid of? If their "science" is the result of a careful and honest evaluation of the data they need not fear anything. If, on the other hand, their "science" is a manufactured tissue of lies and distortions, they have much to fear.
John Navratil| 9.14.11 @ 8:43AM
DaveD,
To add... it is incumbent on scientists to advance their theories and subject them to the scrutiny of their peers. These guys cherry-pick who their peers are. If the process hasn't been perverted, it sure looks like it. These scientists ought to begin by behaving like scientists, clean their house and then, perhaps, people will start giving their words some weight.
DaveD| 9.14.11 @ 12:43PM
"If the process hasn't been perverted, it sure looks like it."
That is exactly right. They also need to be reminded of the story about the little boy who cried "wolf." Human beings are indeed affecting the weather - as witness the urban heat island effect - but is the sky about to fall? That's another question entirely and when these clowns hide their data, hide their "science," and persecute anyone who has the temerity to disagree, from their actions alone there is reason to doubt.
TrueBlue| 9.14.11 @ 6:49PM
Those urban heat islands are where they collect a good bit of their information for those studies too. Assuming they hate the heat levels produced by cities (since that added heat is oh so bad for the Earth) why do they hate people that live in "flyover country" so much? You'd think that would be the kind of lifestyle they'd be pushing people to, not putting them down every chance they get.
Dan Hirsch| 9.14.11 @ 8:58AM
Can't somebody find a DA who recognizes "personal" e-mails on government mail systems are a misuse of government property?
An aggressive DA could offer these perps a choice: declaring the e-mails to be of a "personnel" nature, i.e. about salary review, performance evaluations, and such which can be verified by a judge in camera, or they have misused the government e-mail system with "personal" communications about their wedding, vacation, dinner plans, or as everyone seems to infer, they have been swapping "data stew" recipes.
It would be interesting to learn how many of these brilliant men and women of science will take six months jail time rather than admitting their scientific fraud. Or would they consider themselves martyrs to their cause being unjustly inquisited?
Of course, they could take the Bart Simpson plea, "I didn't do it!" It is their 'speed.'
DTOM
John Navratil| 9.14.11 @ 9:22AM
DTOM?
Conservative Bob| 9.14.11 @ 11:19AM
DTOM= Don't Tread On Me. :>)
Dan Hirsch| 9.14.11 @ 5:07PM
Roger that, C-Bob...
DTOM
Dan Hirsch| 9.14.11 @ 5:07PM
Oh, and thanks.
DH
Anthony| 9.14.11 @ 10:00AM
Freedom of Information statutes are clear on what are public documents and what public documents must be released.
This bastard Mann is a total and complete fraud attempting to pull an Orwellian newspeak on the meaning of "private" emails.
To him and the rest of the leftist hacks, all emails that reveal the totality of their mendacity are "private".
The VA attorney general should indict Mann for fraud and misuse of taxpayer dollars.
Doctor Right| 9.14.11 @ 9:38AM
The global warming fraud is coming unraveled.
It's FUN to watch, isn't it??
:)
Mike D.| 9.14.11 @ 9:52AM
Truth usually finds its way to the surface. When people create a reality based on untruths, its becomes so convoluted and unravels somewhere down the line.
Dan Hirsch| 9.14.11 @ 5:09PM
No, it does not usually find its way to the surface by itself. It needs defenders and supporters and seekers to find it and spread it around. Like this site...
Don't Tread On Me...
faxmatter| 9.14.11 @ 9:43PM
The price accruing to the honest scientists to slowly get the truth out on AGW has been very high: 1. exclusion from publishing at many journals 2. exclusion from prestigious scientific bodies 3. loss of opportunities in respect to promotion and mobility to a different institution 4. verbal assault and ridicule 5. slander 6. loss of funding 7. exclusion from conferences and speaking opportunities 8. loss of post-doctoral and other applicants 9. discrimination in respect to the lab and office space assigned 10. loss of pay raises. These scientists have carried a huge burden to maintain their integrity and to serve the public interest. We owe them a debt of gratitude, though the war is not yet over. In fact, the worst could be yet to come.
TrueBlue| 9.14.11 @ 6:51PM
Basically it just gets harder and harder to remember all the lies they've told and eventually someone catches them on one, causing the whole house of cards to come tumbling down.
Paul from SA| 9.14.11 @ 9:59AM
Excellent information.
All this explains why they won't participate in a public debate or forum to answer questions. They cannot share their data or methods because they would be exposed as charlatans.
Global warming went straight from a theory to a world-wide pronouncement that the science is 100% settled, 100% of scientists agree, we are in danger and we must act now (to separate you from your money). They skipped the part where they have to provide evidence and test their theory. The peer-review process is corrupt and follows the Rachel Carson-DDT scare. She fabricated much of her data and her work was peer-reviewed in an inner circle.
Even they know, most half-educated people need only about 10-15 minutes of factual information and they will stop believing this bunk, junk science. They do not want the other side, or any other side to be heard.
TrueBlue| 9.14.11 @ 6:52PM
Sadly you can't get a lot of the global warming believers to even look at the data, they just believe these "experts" and their word with blind faith.
George S| 9.14.11 @ 10:07AM
There is probably big money riding behind Mann to keep this quiet. The whole AGW thing has indeed unraveled; very few thinking people take it seriously anymore. However, there are still a lot of people who religiously believe and even Republicans tip-toe the issue so as not to offend these potential votes (hey, Mitt Romney). As more and more of the backstage fraud and deceit comes through to the light, more and more believers will eventually have their eyes opened -- giving the green light for politicians to once and for all call AGW a fraud. Once that happens, any pretense for the EPA's GHG regulations vanish and any hope for a multi-billion dollar a year climate exchange (and the newly minted billionaires) goes out the window forever.
Jack London| 9.14.11 @ 1:10PM
'very few thinking people take it seriously anymore'
Yes George. Only an unthinking person could write such utter nonsense.
Dan Hirsch| 9.14.11 @ 5:24PM
Your "utter nonsense" is that AGW is a real, palpable threat, right?
Or do you think that a 4,500,000,000 year old planet's climate can be foretold with a couple hundred year's worth of data taken from just a few points on its 1,321,070,000 square miles of surface area?
The oldest continuously recorded weather station in North America is the Morrow Plots in Urbana IL; it has data starting in 1876. So there you have about 135 years of uninterrupted data...
IF you have any AGW friends, ask them if their models predicted the cooling we've had in the last five or so years. They didn't. If your model can't predict historic data from prior historic data, it is inaccurate. Just, ask anyone proficient in investment analysis. The AGW faithful are wrong, just plain wrong. They don't have enough data and their models don't work even within that limited data set. They know it, don't care, and are trying to hide it. They are what are known as FRAUDS.
Questions?
DTOM
Mark V.| 9.14.11 @ 11:03AM
Two things strike me, and both should cause even the most casual observer to ask "why?":
1. No one should have an expectation of privacy when using the email systems of their employer, let alone those funded by government (and therefore subject to FOIA);
2. This "scientist", Dr. Mann, apparently needs constant reminder of what the Scientific Method requires - open, honest debate and review, PARTICULARLY from skeptics, which ultimately leads scientific theory to be regarded as science fact.
It's almost as if he has something to hide ...
Jack London| 9.14.11 @ 1:11PM
'No one should have an expectation of privacy when using the email systems of their employer, let alone those funded by government'
Do you think all telephone calls should be recorded and made public too?
Patrick| 9.14.11 @ 2:38PM
It would be so much easier if people like Jack went back to stacking large stones atop one another with the occasional virgin sacrifice. At least then I wouldn't have to pay taxes to prop up his silly religion.
In this magical land called "real life", employers have the right to view your browsing logs and read any and all emails that you send while using their servers. Usually this is used to catch slackers, perverts, etc. For example, Dr. James Hansen would have been fired long ago had he not landed a comfy job in government, since he is using his employer's resources (on employer's time) to play around with his silly little website.
Being that this is a matter of my tax dollars going to fund some sniveling little man's "science", I have become his unwilling employer. As such, I certainly do deserve access to his emails, browsing history, and yes, the telephone calls he makes while "on the job".
So, I'm thinking that "Jack London" is one of the following: a college student supported by his parents, an assistant adjunct lecturer at some university, a professional environmental activist, a bureaucrat working at the DNR/EPA. These are all guesses, since in the end, he's just a troll.
Jack London| 9.14.11 @ 3:54PM
So you'd support a bill to record the communications of all public employees - email, telephone, meetings?
I think George Orwell wrote a book about this.
Mark V.| 9.14.11 @ 5:50PM
The issue at hand is email, not recorded phone calls, so it's more than a bit of a red herring to throw that in the mix. But to answer the question partially, it is within the rights of the employer to do so on equipment they own or otherwise pay for, so long as they meet legal disclosure requirements. So legislation allowing it isn't necessary - it's already allowed, and in industries like financial services, a compliance requirement. Personally, I'd use my own cell-phone if I had private, non-work related discussions to hold.
John Navratil| 9.14.11 @ 5:58PM
Jack London,
You might wish to update your views of privacy and when and where the is an expectation of privacy. You will find that it is perfectly legal to put a keystroke monitors on your office PC, to log your web-sites and under SarBox, emails must a retained and catalogued.
Ever hear that electronic voice saying "your call may be monitored for quality assurance?" Did you think that meant your call was private?
Meetings have minutes which, are published and circulated. And if you get caught in some hanky-panky in the cloakroom, don't expect your name to be on your office door in the morning.
Wake up!
Jack London| 9.14.11 @ 6:12PM
Yes of course. I'm asking if say all American academics should routinely have all their communications recorded and stored for taxpayer scrutiny.
John Navratil| 9.14.11 @ 6:27PM
Jack London,
What makes an academic special? Do they have better thoughts? Does their paycheck come from little green men?
As a scientist, one has access to the data for peer review. As a taxpayer one has the right to audit the books to see what one is getting for the money spent.
Academics are not a caste of priests.
Jack London| 9.14.11 @ 6:40PM
I didn't say they were special. I'm asking if you think it should be done at this level. We already have peer review, scrutiny of research grants, assessments of teaching etc.
John Navratil| 9.14.11 @ 8:21PM
Jack London,
Yes!
You don't have peer review - they are quashing FOIA requests. They aren't merely reluctant to share data, the are actively seeking to NOT share data.
Scrutiny of research grants??? - For what are they scrutinized. The money certainly cannot be clawed back. If it's private money, fine. When the funding is done by the taxpayer, my concerns are legitimate. Such scrutiny is needed so that I may properly express my concerns with my representatives either by letter or by ballot.
Assessment of teaching??? - I'll admit I haven't signed up for any classes, but I'll be blown over is any one of these guys are actually teaching.
Etc? - Go one!
Paul from SA| 9.14.11 @ 7:17PM
I would support that, of course with some exceptions. You have it backwards. Orwell was talking about big gov't spying on private citizens. We're talking about public employees -- they work for me and us. It's my and our money paying for their salaries, equipment and systems.
Please understand the distinction. Public vs. private.
carnot| 9.14.11 @ 4:27PM
don't fall for the bait. he's changing the subject.
simply ask this: what does the banner read when users log onto the UVA system? more than likely "....owned by the UVA....subject to monitoring..." is in there.
Mark V.| 9.14.11 @ 5:44PM
It isn't a question of whether they should or shouldn't be recorded, it's whether the employer has the right to do so on equipment they own, and whether the employee has a right to expect privacy with their use of the same (case law holds that they don't). But if phone conversations were recorded (legally, and with disclosure to employees and the contra-party), then "yes" they could be made public, and would have to be made public under a bona-fide request, such as FOIA.
Jack London| 9.14.11 @ 5:58PM
No, the point is whether it is desirable for all communications made by public employees to be recorded for scrutiny by taxpayers. This relates to what they do during job hours, not the equipment.
John Navratil| 9.14.11 @ 6:31PM
Jack London,
What to you think of those investigative journalism pieces showing city inspectors playing pool at the corner bar? Any problem there?
If you want a conversation to be kept private, use your cell phone. If you spent too much time on your cell phone your employer (which may be the taxpayer) has an interest.
faxmatter| 9.14.11 @ 10:07PM
I am pretty sure that the law is settle on this Jack: Phone calls have an expectation of privacy and are not monitorable, even by an employer, without notice. E-mail sent while at work with company lines and equipment is open to the company. This has been the law for at least 10 years or so and I think it is the right place to draw the line. I think telephone calls should remain private and they don't easily lend themselves to being transcribed anyway.
bobmontgomery| 9.14.11 @ 2:57PM
Some mentyion above is made of taxpayer funded research, but that is not the total of taxpayer funded fraud and corruption. Laws have been passed, entire government entities have been created, both at the state and national levels. Lisa Jackson is at this very moment fining and suing people based on the Mann, et al, frauds. There are corporations that have gone bankrupt because of it. Is ATI going this alone? WE know where Eric Holder is, but where is Cucinelli? Other state governors and AG's?
kramer| 9.14.11 @ 2:58PM
Hey ATI, thanks for working to get those emails. I hope you are successful and that the truth, whatever it may be, will come out of them.
Marc Jeric| 9.14.11 @ 4:09PM
This global warming conspiracy needs to be put in perspective to be properly understood. This far-left attack by government-paid drones started in the 1970′s with the global cooling scam: we should disarm our nuclear bombers and fill them with soot to be spread over the poles and so prevent those new glaciers from descending south and crushing the New York skyscrapers to dust. When that did not work the same fakers invented the global warming hoax in the 1990′s; we should nationalize all industries and organize a UN-sponsored world socialist government based on “social justice” with the fakers in charge. What with 12 years of substantial cooling the fakers switched to the climate change flimflam in the 2000′s; so whatever happens we should…see above under the global warming hoax. And now we are faced with the cap & trade power grab – but the aim is the same as above. Our socialists, marxists, communists, Hollywood stars, university professors in social and political “sciences”, and environmentalists are all clamoring for action while spurring President Obama ("Tomorrow the oceans will stop rising and the planet will start healing") and his 35 czars/komissars to undertake immediate measures to save the planet – with the same aims as described above.
In the meantime our Mian Stream Media are unanimous in spreading this criminal propaganda daily; the ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, the NY Times, the Washington Post, etc. drive this drivel daily. What is totally ignored are the detailed descriptions of faked data, skewed computer programs, politically revised conclusions by the UN-sponsored far-left clique of biased scientists – all government-paid drones that no private enterprise would hire. Another thing ignored is the “Global Warming Petition” (see Internet) where 31,487 independent US scientists (including 9,029 of them with PhD degrees) dispute decisively the findings of the UN-sponsored panel; also ignored is the “Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change” (see also Internet) where a smaller number of competent world scientists, about 712, including 142 pure climatologists, state the same – i.e., that the man-caused catastrophic global warming is a farce. The books by Christopher Horner, Robert Carter, and AW Montford describing the lies, fakes, phony data, opposite conclusions, redacting by UN political hacks, reverse graphs, etc., have exposed this far-left propaganda in painful detail.
In the case of the above mentioned Petition, several "environmentalists" had submitted phony names with phony credentials in order to sabotage that effort. It took several years of painstaking and expensive effort (we contributed a lot of private money for that) to clean up the list from those saboteurs and verify all academic and professional data of the signatories.
To put this whole conspiracy in terms of numbers, let me say that the projected world-threatening increase of carbon dioxide of 100 ppm (parts per million) by the end of this century would increase the termal absorptivity of the atmosphere by one-eighth of one percent; that is the definition of something totally negligible. On the other hand the sun cycles of cooling and heating are thousands of times more powerful with regard to the carbon dioxide in the air; when the sun is cold the oceans absorb many millions of tons of it; and when the sun heats up the oceans release the carbon dioxide in quantities thousands of times bigger than anything the mankind could produce. To illustrate this point in more accessible terms to somebody who who is not a climatologist or a scientist or an engineer; the argument of catastrophic anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming issued by our panic driven socialist/marxist government-paid hacks is like saying that a burp of a lonely wolf in Alaska will transform Florida into a Sahara-like desert - immediately!
As for that bloviating gasbag Al Gore and for Dr. Mann who inverted cause and effect in his "studies" - they should be brought to the The International Court in The Hague on charges of crimes against humanity.
Marc Jeric (signatory of both documents referenced above)
Jack London| 9.14.11 @ 4:13PM
Yawn - doesn't take long for the resident Koch brothers stooge to copy and paste his conspiracy idiocy, does it. Hey guy - seen any black helicopters around?
Dan Hirsch| 9.14.11 @ 5:34PM
Jack;
Just because you get checks from George Soros does not mean that everyone taking the time to counter malarkey masquerading as science gets a check like you do...
You offer not one syllable of reasoning to counter Marc Jeric. The only reasonable conclusion is that you never have had, nor have been given any rational response. Most likely because rational, reasoned answers to these objections do not exist.
Still your wagging tongue, until you can connect it to a rational thought. Otherwise you'll just confirm what many reading you suspect - that you are either a useful idiot or profiteer from AGW promotion!
DTOM
Jack London| 9.14.11 @ 5:49PM
You know Dan, if you truly believe the world's governments and scientists are conspiring in a fraud of this scale - one that is simply astounding in scale and cover-up - then if I were you I would abandon the day job and get out on the streets and mobilize the population. This is truly the nightmare conspiracy theory that you've always thought would come and for which bunkers and guns were made.
Or you could get onto Oliver Stone. He could make a nice movie about it.
John Navratil| 9.14.11 @ 6:00PM
Jack London,
Please read the Law of the Sea Treaty and notice the supernational taxing authority contained therein.
Jack London| 9.14.11 @ 6:56PM
I don't know what you're talking about there except we still haven't ratified that treaty I believe.
The global warming deniers remind me of the HIV-AIDS deniers - I'm sure you recall their denial of the science, and the tragic outcomes, even fairly recently in South Africa. Different science, but familiar right wing politics. Which goes to show that the climate deniers are playing politics, not science, which as this 'American Tradition Institute' - a thinly disguised big business front - shows all too well.
John Navratil| 9.14.11 @ 8:30PM
Jack London,
Nice change of topic....
You are astounded that world governments can conspire so I point you to a document which is such a conspiracy. It has not been ratified, YET, although it came close two years ago. It's been going on since draft 1 in th 1950's. There is already a taxing authority which has been created by the U.N. It is merely waiting the ratification so it can begin the assesments.
Then you lapse into HIV/AIDS. I, for the record, do NOT recall any denial of science. I recall the science being very tentative. I will tell you now that the mechanisms of AID are not clearly understood although great strides have been made. A death sentence is now a chronic condition; an improvement to be lauded.
How this relates to weather is purely in your own mind where use this as a trope to discredit climate skeptics. Non sequitor!
Jack London| 9.15.11 @ 4:11AM
No - as with climate scientists, there have been a few maverick HIV-AIDS denier scientists, and surely you are aware of the terrible price South Africa paid under its president Thabo Mbeki. One of the many shameful things about Reagan was his siding with religious political interests over AIDS. The similarities are striking - a small number of scientists, and some prominent anti-science politicians (Perry, Bachmann, Palin etc) - playing out now in climate change.
John Navratil| 9.15.11 @ 9:02AM
Jack London,
A typical response when arguing with a liberal! When you begin to pin them down on one topic, they change the subject. HIV/AIDS is another topic, one which I would be happy to discuss in another forum. Yet here you present as an ad hominem attack against climate skeptics, ungrounded for the purpose of argument.
This little sub-thread has managed in just four responses from you to reference the Koch brothers to repudiate Mark Jeric (non sequitor), followed up with a suggestion that Dan Hirsch was a conspiracy theorist (unsupported).
To my support of Hirsch by referencing the Law of the Sea Treaty, you claim that you don't understand the association and suggest its irrelevance by observing it hasn't been ratified (That's a bit like arguing Obamacare is irrelevant because it doesn't kick in until 2014) and go on to state the climate "deniers" remind you are "HIV/AIDs" science deniers which you support with the single example of a crackpot dictator and a vague insinuation that Reagan had suspicious religious view on the topic.
Notice you you didn't address my point that you are using this topic in a guilt by association attack on climate skeptics without so much as establishing an association. No, you just decided to continue on with another topic.
Tedious, to say the least. Non productive for the purpose of debate. You should stay away from the catnip.
Jack London| 9.15.11 @ 1:49PM
Well John, I've yet to see anything from you or anyone else here that shows the current scientific consensus is _not_ for AGW. Instead we get this absurd and desperate grubbing around for dirt on a climate scientist who's work has been cleared not once but twice. That is hardly a position of any strength or use.
As for AIDS, here's the start of Wiki's denialism section. There are uncanny similarities if you substitute man-made global warming, CO2 etc.
'AIDS denialism is the view held by a loosely connected group of people and organizations who deny that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is the cause of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). Some denialists reject the existence of HIV, while others accept that HIV exists but say that it is a harmless passenger virus and not the cause of AIDS. Insofar as denialists acknowledge AIDS as a real disease, they attribute it to some combination of sexual behavior, recreational drugs, malnutrition, poor sanitation, hemophilia, or the effects of the drugs used to treat HIV infection.'
John Navratil| 9.15.11 @ 10:34PM
Jack London,
I'll have what you're drinking!
skip| 9.16.11 @ 1:50PM
Equus Asinus Enthalpy London
Michael Mann is one of the IPCC political hacks who is notorious for being completely discredited because he was repeatedly caught lying and cheating by repeatedly intentionally manipulating IPCC non peer-reviewed research inaccurately and dishonestly in order to knowingly intentionally deceive the public.
AIDS hoaxers predicted by now over half the population would be infected one way or another.
Jack London | 6.14.11 @ 7:43PM):
"if you look at the projection of the (Bush) deficit the (Bush) tax cuts make up by far the largest part -"
"See jaredbernsteinblog.com"
Per the OMB:
Federal revenue in 2003: $1,782,314,000,000
Federal revenue in 2007: $2,567,985,000,000
This is an increase of over 44% in four years after the Bush tax cuts.
Jared Bernstein (WSJ | 9.1.11):
(on ABC about Obama's job proposal speech 9/8)
"He'll (Obama) have some ideas for infrastructure.... --a program called FAST: Fix America's Schools Today, which could get hundreds of thousands of construction workers back to work repairing the backlog of maintenance in the nation's stock of public schools."
'hundreds of thousands of construction workers' on 'the backlog of maintenance' in 'the nation's' 'schools', per one of your sourced gurus.
Whether on science, economics, politics, sources cited, whatever the topic, you are an idiot.
Dan Hirsch| 9.14.11 @ 10:29PM
Jack;
It is not all of the world's scientists, just those who are colluding on a very specific agenda that sees my personal property rights as the problem.
You, sir, are another useful idiot. Believing in theories unproven, by scientists unwilling to share their raw data, you accuse me of paranoia!!
I say you are just another ignorant fool who cannot for ten seconds believe any thing other than what you have been told.
You have yet to offer a single scintilla of reason to refute my simple questions. You are the tool, the fool and the idiot.
I say crawl back under your rock, you have been outed here as a quisling for those wishing to take our liberty, our freedom and our property for your supposed 'safety!'
Dolt!
Jack London| 9.15.11 @ 4:18AM
Sorry but you're wrong - there is overwhelming consensus among the world's scientists and governments about what's happening in climate change. You might wish it otherwise by siding with antiscience and wilfully ignorant people like Palin, Bachmann and Perry, but there's no future with their denial beliefs.
Dan Hirsch| 9.15.11 @ 8:41AM
Jack;
You introduced HIV-AIDs; let me introduce the Pacific NW Quake-Tsunami factor. It's simple. 41 times in the last 10,000 years what is now the Pacific NW has experienced very major quakes. The exact numbers work out to 1 time every 244 years. The last one according to multiple geologic studies conducted in the area occurred over 300 years ago.
AGW has NEVER occurred before. This major event in the NW has occurred 41 times. The tsunami anticipated is an horrific event with spectacular death and damage, look at Japan last spring and the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004. In AGW the sea level will rise maybe three feet and take 100 years to do it. In these tsunamis the sea level rose 20 -50' and did it in minutes.
Look at the preparations being taken to deal with a proven, recurring geological event, the NW tsunami/quake and compare that to the hypothetical damage from global warming.
In the last 7 years, two tsunamis killed over a quarter million people, in two days. Please show me the tens of thousands of people who will be killed in an afternoon because of AGW. Yes, your little 'sciengandists' (That's what I name scientists who will not share data - will go to court to prevent their data from being looked at by skeptics!) will be able to cook up scenarios where people might die. I'll show you video of people dying - right there on your own screen!
To fight the hypothetical AGW, your and my energy, food, living must all be taxed, heavily.
To prepare for the real threat of tsunami, the US Pacific NW has what, run a couple of PSA's on NPR, installed a couple of warning sirens?
So we ignore the real, proven danger, and we all are supposed to remake our economy, our infrastructures, our lives because a secretive bunch of sciengandists say we have to? Has anybody done a cost benefit analysis on this? How many lives/dollar will be saved by planting hideous windmills all over the state of California? How many golden eagles do the windmills kill a year? CA has about 2,300 of them left, in the last couple of years windmills have killed 80. Let's see that means in 50 or 60 years there won't be any - that's why the golden eagles don't have to worry about AGW.
So answer me that!! Which you cannot. Which means you betcha it's a hoax, until we see the data!
Morons!
Don't tread on me!
Jack London| 9.15.11 @ 1:55PM
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is not a secret, Dan. I think a black helicopter has landed in your back yard - and those nice men in white coats are there to help you.
Scoob Edoo| 9.15.11 @ 9:22AM
OMG - did you seriously mention the 'consensus' here? Do you have any idea what the Scientific Method is? Do you have the slightest knowledge of how real science works? Consensus is not mentioned in the SM and it's not necessary or even prudent for real science. Consensus is only brought up by the people who want/need you to believe that something is true, not necessarily based in actual facts. There were once consensus views that the eath was flat and that the Universe revolved around the Earth. The AGW consensus will go the same way once people start asking the right questions and not just believing that there is a consensus and the matter is settled. The mind boggles.
faxmatter| 9.14.11 @ 10:15PM
Hey Jack, would you like to share with us the evidence that convinced you that AGW was real? Are you capable of working with facts and logic?
loulou| 9.14.11 @ 7:03PM
Why do the taxpayers of Virginia have to support this fraud?
john dubose| 9.14.11 @ 8:18PM
Not long ago, I worked for a company and had an email account. Each and every email I sent was TOTALLY clean and mostly business. Not one of them would be of concern to me if the whole world saw it. That is likely the case with nearly all company email accounts. It can only be hubris and folly if these guys expected any other situation.
Augusta| 9.14.11 @ 8:55PM
Leave it to lefties to insist upon the veracity of their theories, vilifying all who differ with them, yet fight so hard against actually proving them. Quintessentially Orwellian.
faxmatter| 9.14.11 @ 10:17PM
Dr. Mann's legal representation must be quite expensive by now. I wonder who's paying that for him?
Dan Hirsch| 9.14.11 @ 10:31PM
"Paging Mr. Soros, Paging Mr. Soros!"
I presume.
Do Not Tread on Me, damnit!
Richard Baker| 9.15.11 @ 6:32AM
An intellectual midget. He creates "science" with fraudulent data and methodology and now wants to hide his foolishness because, at best, he's a weasel. Why he has an academic "career" is the $64,oo0 Question. Since liberals always seem to want full disclosure then let it include frauds like Mann. Or am I being "anti-science?"
Russell | 9.16.11 @ 12:37AM
No Richard. You are not being anti-science. That would entail a glimmer of understanding of what you are against.
Chesser has never gotten closer to science , rocket or otherwise than his astroturf moonbat rookery, and it would serve the barrators at The American Tradition Institute right were NASA to implode their crania en masse by attaching a complete copy of Conservapedia to Mann's e-mails.