The Spectacle Blog
Top Mann Nemesis: He’s Not a Fraud
The person who was most instrumental in debunking Climategate scientist Michael Mann’s hockey stick chart, Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit, said last night that he did not believe his scientific misrepresentations rose to the level of fraud.
The person who was most instrumental in debunking Climategate scientist Michael Mann’s hockey stick chart, Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit, said last night that he did not believe his scientific misrepresentations rose to the level of fraud. At the Heartland Institute’s Fourth International Conference on Climate Change in Chicago, McIntyre delivered a compelling account of his adventures in trying to obtain temperature data and in successfully challenging Mann’s work, but then left much of the ballroom disappointed by letting Mann off the hook. My Heartland colleague Dan Miller recounts:
Citing a particularly controversial email in the Climategate emails that referred to hiding an unexpected but inconveniently inexplicable decline in global temperatures, McIntyre concluded, “To the extent that things like the ‘trick’ (to “hide the decline”) were common practice, the practices need to be disavowed. The scientists do not need to be drummed out, but there has to be some commitment to avoiding these sort of practices in the future.”
But the audience was having none of McIntyre’s forgiving rhetoric, and questioner after questioner pressed the Canadian to acknowledge legal, if not moral, culpability.
“I don’t even think in those terms,” McIntyre insisted.
As Miller and Heartland president Joe Bast noted, it was an extremely odd audience reaction: McIntyre received a standing ovation upon his introduction, thanks to his dogged research and unrelenting demand for information and accountability, but then his blase’ attitude about scientists’ behavior — particularly Mann’s — left most of the audience cold and some even angry. The applause for McIntyre was tepid upon the conclusion of his remarks. I don’t think I’ve ever seen that before.
McIntyre said he believed expressing emotions and anger over the episode was counterproductive and even self-indulgent, and that simply proving Mann and others wrong was sufficient. Perhaps if McIntyre personally lent or gave a few million dollars for Mann to indulge in his deceptive research, instead of taxpayers footing the bill, then he might feel more self-indulgent himself.
View all comments (47) | Leave a comment
Related Blog Posts
More Blog Posts by Paul Chesser
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/05/17/top-mann-nemesis-hes-not-a-fra
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
ADVERTISEMENT
JmsA| 5.17.10 @ 7:02PM
Nothing to see here but an egghead taking care of another egghead. If anything, the audience is probably now more secure now in their belief of Mann's fraud, irrespective of the defense of the indefensible.
Duster| 5.18.10 @ 12:56PM
It is not a case of "egg heads" vs. the rest of us. It is a case of reviewing what is KNOWN to have taken place vs. what hot heads on both sides of the debate allege. "Fraud" implies knowingly promulgating some kind of false element for gain. There is no indication that ANY AGW advocate is in any doubt about the reality of AGW. Indeed, if you actually read the CRU emails, that is quite clear. They are "true believers" in the religious sense. They see themselves as an embattled minority attempting to get the word out before an apocalypse. They see their opposition - us skeptics - as a well-funded conspiracy of greed, just many skeptics and "denialists" see the AGW camp. The "hiding of the decline" in a graphic was in effect a rhetorical ploy - not fraud - that the creators saw as a means of presenting a more coherent view of what they "believed." It was not good science but so far the smoking guns all point to a failure of skepticism among the AGW camp rather than fraud in any criminal sense.
If you want to talk fraud look to the politicians and the carbon traders.
Jonah| 5.18.10 @ 3:30PM
The Leftist politicians and carbon traders couldn't have tried to cheat us without the lies and fraud of AGW scientists like Mann.
Apologists like you lied before Climategate and you're still lying now to protect your own asses.
All of you Leftist liars and thieves should be punished.
QBeamus| 5.19.10 @ 2:18PM
I think you're using a different definition of fraud than the one I'm familiar with. If a televangelist faked faith healings, but he incerely believes in the power of God to heal, would you likewise conclude that he's not perpetrating a fraud?
The Climategate emails clearly show that Mann (and company) have been deliberately attempting to manipulate the public, and have been relying upon "tricks" rather than accepted scientific practices to do it. The question of whether they actually believe in AGW is completely beside the point.
JmsA| 5.17.10 @ 7:04PM
Should read: ...is now probably more secure in their belief... Apologies; long day of jury duty.
ggoblue| 5.17.10 @ 7:40PM
maybe if he lost his career [like thousands of my neighbors] or his children had to move away from him to survive [like my own and many others']....
this fraud was and still is a crime...we must prosecute and we must turn the heat of prosecution towards an enabling press corps...
millions of people have lost their careers over global warming.
Wes| 5.17.10 @ 8:36PM
McIntyre, is smart enough to know that you don't blow yourself up to kill your opponenent, especially when you are already winning. It is disapointing that many in the audience, and many posting here, can't seem to grasp this simple fact.
Nobama| 5.17.10 @ 9:42PM
Sorry, Wes, I disagree; we must tell the TRUTH!
There's too much at stake to enable this terrible lie.
Josh| 5.18.10 @ 8:09AM
If you've read McIntyre's blog, then you know it is all about finding the truth. The simple fact is it is not that easy to prove scientific fraud - is every scientist who pressed a specific theory that turned out to be incorrect a fraud? Keep in mind that what Mann has done is push one theory, and others have blown it up into a political tool. He has not backed down from the theory when this happened, but who would if they truly believed a theory? Especially their own theory? Ego certainly comes into play, but that doesn't constitute fraud, it just means he's human.
With that said, I think Mann is scum, a shoddy scientist, and not worth the taxpayer dollars that have been spent on his research. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth just thinking about NOT attempting to hang this guy up to dry, but I have to admit that McIntyre is right, and my own response is simply an emotional one. Strong emotions do not equate to truth and justice. In fact, very often strong emotion leads to rash, unjust action that ultimately is harmful.
Nobama| 5.18.10 @ 3:14PM
You must have just fallen off a turnip truck, rube.
Globaloney Warming has been a conjob from the beginning. It's a bunch of Leftist BS and is really only about power and control--two aphrodisiacs for Marxists.
Either someone got to McIntyre or he's just a huge wussie; either way, we all know the truth--AGW is a fraud and the "scientists" who promulgated it should be punished. They have no honor and are not to be trusted!
CO2 Insanity | 5.17.10 @ 9:18PM
I was very dissapointed (watched online at Pajama's Media) with this guy. Making excuses for all the fraud associated with AGW doesn't make it with me. While I don't advocate that it's a "hanging offense" the fraud needs to be prosecuted. These people are no better than somoene who touts how wonderful a stock is to get the price up, then dumps it before all the people whoh bought it get screwed.
Steven Douglas| 5.17.10 @ 10:22PM
The nice thing about McIntyre is that he has absolutely no political axe to grind. EITHER WAY. He is as level headed as he has always been. He won't jump on the catastrophic alarmists' loony bandwagon, nor will he engage in witch hunts to satisfy anyone else's sensibilities. The point he made, and I agree: It is not his place, nor is he qualified, to know Mann's intent (and intent is required for fraud).
I personally can't stand Mann, and do consider him a toady on a mission, but McIntyre's responses were absolutely consistent with someone who thinks only with a level head. ALWAYS. NO SIDES.
GP| 5.17.10 @ 10:38PM
I have great respect for Steven McIntyre and understand his reluctance to call out the fraud he has discovered. Before the climate-gate letters came out, it was not clear there there such malicious actions taking place like having journal editors removed and proof of the blocking of critical papers. Mr. McIntyre made it a policy on his blog that there was to be no discussion about the intent of Mann, Jones, Briffa, Hansen, et. al. as there was no evidence to be provided. I believe the enforcement of this policy has become a habit even after the climate-gate letters offered evidence of their intent.
The only mistake I have seen him make is his calling out of Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli with no evidence of the attorney generals intent. This was premature on his part as the contract language for Mann's grants and the laws of the State of Virginia needs to be examined by a lawyer. This is not something that can be done by peer review and the academics who are fighting this have become adversaries to the office entrusted to protect the taxpayers funds. As a taxpayer that contributed to federal grants to Mann, I am NOT amused with the academics.
Russell Seitz| 5.17.10 @ 10:57PM
" he did not believe his scientific misrepresentations rose to the level of fraud."
Mr. Chesser's on the other hand , often positiveLy transcend it .
Jordan| 5.17.10 @ 11:13PM
Still wearing knee-pads for the "Hockey-Stick" theory, right? Predictable.
All together now, "Hide the decline..."
Poptech | 5.18.10 @ 8:15AM
No Russell, Mann made an honest academic mistake of failing to disclose his methods and data for years to prevent reproduction and not because he was trying to hide his never before used mathematical method which "accidentally" minded his data sets for hockey stick shapes all by "accident" because that is how "science" is done in academia. Sell it to someone else. Fraud is fraud.
Paul Kelly | 5.18.10 @ 1:36AM
McIntyre's position is not new. He has never said fraud and has always discouraged such comments. He accuses Mann of mathematics incompetence and confirmation bias.
Charles Martel| 5.18.10 @ 1:58AM
Of course it was fraudulent, and Mann should be personally ruined because of it.
Why not? I mean, is there so bad a shortage of corrupt, political scienticians out there that we can't afford to lose even one?
+++
AlanG| 5.18.10 @ 2:55AM
Steve McIntyre would be very foolish to issue legal accusations. He can't possibly afford an expensive law suit. He is not the injured party here. He's not an American taxpayer.
James| 5.18.10 @ 6:50PM
McIntyre has the right to speak his own opinion, silly ass. A First Amendment org would pick up the case pro bono anyway.
What's foolish is to provide cover for Leftists who seek to transform our country into a Marxist State.
Michael Snow | 5.18.10 @ 8:01AM
Do people want to win the war against the IPCC and Kerry-Lieberman or do they want to fight a grudge match?
A good soldier knows the objective and does not go chasing rabbits.
Jamie| 5.18.10 @ 3:17PM
BOTH! It's not an either or proposition. Don't be such a weenie.
These "scientists" should be punished for their fraudulent actions.
kdk33| 5.18.10 @ 8:52AM
Bad science is not fraud. Neither is defending a bad theory in which you mistakenly believe. The prosecutions would be endless.
Accepting taxpayer funding then "failing to disclose his methods and data for years to prevent reproduction" IS fraud and should be prosecuted. Why? it's paid for by the public, it belongs to the public, you aren't allowed to hide it.
groweg| 5.18.10 @ 9:27AM
An impetus behind the wish to prosecute certain warmers for fraud is that the theory of global warming has economically devastated America by keeping us from developing our native energy reserves and has enriched certain climate scientists and government bureaucrats. Unfortunately, this is a "scientific" theory that has led to terrible policy decisions which has hurt many people and will negatively impact a lot more if cap-and-trade passes. Like "ggoblue" above, I live in Michigan and have seen the human cost of this theory firsthand. As development in the third world is suppressed by global warming theory the human toll will be compounded. If scientists who propound this theory are acting deceptively and/or with wanton disregard for the truth (gross negligence) they should be held responsible for the consequences.
Dudley Robertson| 5.18.10 @ 9:54AM
Understand that it is not the science that is being investigated. It is a deliberate act to present untrue facts to the public in order to persuade them to take extreme measures to "protect" the environment. Mann's hockey stick propelled him to a position of influence and power and he promoted himself along those lines. He and his "science" played a major role in forming IPCC policy. His discredited hockey stick also garnered him a great deal of public funding. When exposed, Mann and his community did all they could to prevent their house of cards from falling around their necks. They may have succeeded if the e-mails had not been exposed along with their deceit, blatant political agendas, and what may prove to be out right fraud. Remember that in the wings is a soon to be passed cap and trade bill, and EPA regulations to control carbon dioxide emmissiions that are draconian to say the least and that rely on the "hid the decline science" promoted by Mann and others. There is enough here to at least demand an investigation and the way UVA is behaving it is clear that they are afraid of the consequences of such an investigation.
Daniel| 5.18.10 @ 4:00PM
You nailed it. People can Mann's anything they wish: deceiver, bamboozler, hoodwinker .... whatever. It wouldn't be so bad if these climate "scientists" were simply taking grant money and playing around in their sandboxes.
It's the public policy decisions being based on this flim-flammery that we should be worried about.
owyheewine| 5.18.10 @ 10:11AM
The sad truth is that most "scientific" studies have a predetermined outcome. A clever studier can set up his study to insure recognition for himself, and a steady source of future income by carefully setting the parameters in such a way to drive to the predetermined conclusions. Just look at the constant barrage of food and drug studies. Totally different results depending on who is funding the study.
Michael Mann is a poster boy for this kind of science. I favor rewarding his blatant misuse of science with a permanant job at a second rate hamburger joint, where he can flip burgers instead of data.
Sean| 5.18.10 @ 11:06AM
Steve McIntyre, thanks for your excellent statistical analysis and tireless effort to reveal the junk scince behind this fraud.
But I suggest that you focus on the science and leave the legal determinations to others more qualified in this area.
As for your pssive nice guy approach - that might work in your rose colored glasses world where everyone is playing air and as honest intentions - but the AGW movement is not interested in facts. Theyare aggressively pursuing the hearts an minds on of the public with a broad based disinformation campaign, and with nefarious goals. When you are fighting evil incarnate, you can not sit back and give the devil a free pass. Steve, you are naive and wen you wake up to this it will be too late for you to do anything to prevent the political and profit goals of this movement's various elements.
Justa Joe| 5.18.10 @ 12:24PM
I agree with you. The left in general and the climate crooks in particular count on the average Joe to always turn the other cheek, which allows them to pursue there agenda with impunity no matter how much harm is caused.
Ben| 5.18.10 @ 11:25AM
I agree with McIntyre that there is entirely too much emotion in the Climategate nonsense. There were problems, and many things were very poor science. However, the only crime committed was ordering the destruction of documents that were under the FOIA request. The rest, while horribly irresponsible, are not technically fraudulent.
We cannot keep the upper hand if we let our emotions get away from us. I applaud McIntyre's attempts at neutrality.
Jonah| 5.18.10 @ 3:24PM
Bug off, concern troll! There's not too much emotion in Climategate--there's too much DECEIT! We're sick of you liars and thieves.
There's nothing you filthy Leftists won't do to grab power and control. Shine the light of truth on you bastards and you scatter like the cockroaches you are.
Call these con-men out for their treachery!
Chuck L| 5.18.10 @ 11:38AM
McIntyre does not have a horse in this race and has alway been consistent in this regard. He is and always has been only interested in scientific and statistical accuracy. In this emotionally charged debate, I believe that McIntyre's dispassionate objectivity is a welcome change.
Daganstein | 5.18.10 @ 11:45AM
McIntyre wasn't rabid enough for the Heartland audience. Go figure.
Smitty| 5.18.10 @ 6:45PM
We should be fearless in our pursuit of the truth. The only ones who are rabid are you on the Left who seek to defraud the public.
Yosemeti Sam| 5.18.10 @ 12:11PM
" ... McIntyre delivered a compelling account of his adventures in trying to obtain temperature data and in successfully challenging Mann's work, but then left much of the ballroom disappointed by letting Mann off the hook...."
Ah - Canadian fortitude!
Ride against the tide - then ride with the tide.
John Eggert| 5.18.10 @ 1:05PM
What people miss is that Steve McIntyre believes that the responsible party is the one that provided funding to Mann without oversite. To go after Mann is like going after the kid selling dime bags on the corner. The big time pusher is barely affected, doesn't care and is happy to see the attention diverted from himself. By prosecuting Mann, he is removed from the potential of being a witness for the prosecution of the real criminals. The real criminals are the funding bodies that let him get away with things in the first place. I believe if someone would have asked Steve if he thought there was a case to be made that the NSF (for instance) should be facing an inquiry with potential criminal charges, he would say yes. Personally, I think Mann should have been offered immunity from prosecution and thus eliminate any potential use of the fifth. Then grilled intensely to explain his actions and who funded them.
Heidi D. Cline| 5.18.10 @ 3:20PM
All together now:
Dum-te-dum-te-dum hide the decline, hide the decline, du-te-dum-te-dum, trallalallala
Peter Melia| 5.18.10 @ 6:49PM
The Concorde was a State-built (Britain & France) and State operated (Air France & British Airways) project. It had only one thing going for it, speed.
I did a trip in it once, BA, and we were dutifully informed that the aircraft was going to pass into supersonic speed mode. The Mach-meter on the forward bulkhead faithfully indicated the increase in speed (I think it was in mph and Mach). The only thing is, as the meter reached just below supersonic, a most terrifying vibration set in, and passenger conversation ceased. The speed was reduced back to normal and then after a while the Captain had a second go at it. This time the aircraft made it into supersonic mode without any apparent problem, and we all relaxed. That’s right, relaxed. We had paid 1,000’s of pounds for the trip and spent the first part of the flight stressed into a sort of frozen terror. It crossed my mind that surely a more civilised mode of travel would be one in which the passenger could be sipping a gin & tonic at take off, without ever noticing ripples on the surface of the drink.
Like an airship.
Nevil Shute, in his biography, “Slide Rule” recounts the story of the ill-fated British airship R101, which crashed in flames at Beauvais, France. According to Shute, the R101 was British Government adventure into airship design and construction which would prove the a Government could do a better job than private enterprise, especially the very successful R100, which had already made many trouble-free voyages.
According to Shute, the R101 design was blighted by Government interference, so that costs spiralled and the eventual ship was overweight.
Safety was never a question with the R100, but after the R101 disaster, the British Government decided that they were “unsafe” and the R100 was withdrawn from service.
Could it be that an SST built by Boeing might still have been flying, as being a better aircraft?
Olaf Koenders| 5.19.10 @ 9:08AM
I applaud McIntyre for his work but he let Mann et al get off too easily.
The fact remains that greed leads to fraud and poor science is just poor science. However, noting Mann's poor science and his supposed qualifications enabling him to know better, should have led him to be indicted. I'll bet that Mann is fully aware of the well-known and proven science that points to 2 massive white elephants in the room:
The Carboniferous Period had up to 20x the CO2 of today, and the Jurassic had some 10-15x today's CO2, where life clearly thrived and delicate aragonite corals evolved in non-acid oceans. We have the un-dissolved coral and shellfish fossils to prove it.
Gargantuan amounts of CO2 compared to today's measly 388ppm, that feed our plants, then our cattle and ultimately us, that have never caused a runaway greenhouse or fabled "tipping point", ever. Which is why (intelligent?) life exists on this planet to argue this very point which is now moot.
Forget the feedbacks, forcings and modelling as CO2 has now been proven to be a most minor player in the climate, noting that global CO2 is some 0.03% of the atmosphere and man's contribution is just 3% of THAT. I'm not going to wet the bed over 0.0009% of the atmosphere considering CO2's logarithmic and declining effect the more you add.
Meanwhile, nature continues on her merry way, changing the climate at will and pouring out far more CO2 than man ever could, while we freeze in our caves without campfires, doing our bit to "save the planet" 1C of warming for the next 30 years (IPCC's bloated figures - corrected figures 200 years). Imagine the stunned looks on the faces of alien visitors should they see what we haven't made of ourselves regarding something so simple.
Mann should be forced to repay all funding and be jailed for his latest impossibly pathetic attempt at science:
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann.....ence09.pdf
Notably, a few words stand out: Reconstruct, synthetic pseudoproxy, generated, forced, model simulations, interpret, context, estimated, additional modifications.
However, after all that reconstruction from estimations, pseudo-plastic forced modelling and severe guessing, Mann has managed to produce a map for the LIA - WHICH IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE MWP BUT WITH THE TEMP TURNED DOWN ON THE MODEL!! Note how southern Greenland in the LIA graphic still has the warming of the MCA (MWP) graphic many hundreds of years later. Is this what we're paying for? Blatant fraud! I suggest the entire scientific community rail against this paper with full condemnation.
Olaf Koenders| 5.19.10 @ 9:19AM
Further to my previous comment regarding Mann et al's latest "study", note the regions sampled do not include the oceans, however the oceans have somehow manifested hot spots that last hundreds of years. Fraud in a nutshell.
Maria| 4.5.11 @ 11:32AM
I remember beeing on some concerts when there was the topic around Michael Mann and his climate ideas. Also the people at the tickets vergleich where we were buying the tickets said that there was a lot of controversy around him. Seems that this topic however has now been resolved.
Hareton| 4.12.11 @ 5:01AM
The Climategate story is like a snowball rolling down a hill, getting bigger every hour and along the way the snowball keeps picking up more and more casualties; the latest being Michael Mann purveyor of the now discredited “hockey stick” graph on global warming. Anyone who knows the players' respective profiles and histories sees how this is not merely sleazy or even abusive. It is prima facie malicious.