Morano and Lindzen: Mann exoneration a “whitewash”

Well, that didn’t take long.

Yesterday, I covered the exoneration of Michael Mann by the Penn State University “climategate” inqury. And I wondered (mostly rhetorically, I admit) whether this would give impetus to allegations of  “whitewash”.

Lo and behold, Marc Morano of Climate Depot has come through right on schedule, even comparing Mann to disgraced investment fraudster Bernie Madoff and calling Mann the “posterboy of the corrupt and disgraced climate science echo chamber” .  And, the denialosphere’s star scientist, MIT meteorologist Richard Lindzen,  has weighed in right behind him, echoing Morano’s “whitewash” characterization.

Can the rest of the denialosphere be far behind? Oh, the sad  –  and presumably unintentional – irony of it all.

The PSU report must be a big deal;  indeed, a it’s very rare event for Marc Morano to actually rouse himself and write a press release. Usually he just slaps a misquote on top of a convenient link, and sends it around the blogosphere.

This time was different:

Climate Depot’s Executive Editor Marc Morano on Penn State’s inquiry into Michael Mann:

‘This is not surprising that Mann’s own university circled the wagons and narrowed the focus of its own investigation to declare him ethical.

‘The fact that the investigation cited Mann’s ‘level of success in proposing research and obtaining funding’ as some sort of proof that he was meeting the ‘highest standards’, tells you that Mann is considered a sacred funding cash cow. At the height of his financial career, similar sentiments could have been said about Bernie Madoff.

“Mann has become the posterboy of the corrupt and disgraced climate science echo chamber. No university whitewash investigation will change that simple reality.”

Wow:  Mann = Madoff. That one’s off the the charts on the hyperbol-o-meter, even by Morano’s standards. Never mind that the passage in question was specifically addressing whether Mann had strayed outside accepted practices in proposing research. That charge was not even alleged, and only addressed by the PSU inqury committee in an effort to address every possible violation of the code of conduct. Trust Morano to misrepresent this peripheral finding as  the central argument of the report.

And there’s another new equation: Peer-reviewed science = climate science echo chamber. That’s unbelievable audacity coming from the Great Posterboy for Climate Science Disinformation himself, who has probably done more than anyone else to create the anti-science echo chamber, the real one, in its current form of symbiosis between the blogosphere and the right-wing press.

Compared to Morano, Lindzen’s outbursts seem almost tame, but are nevertheless outrageous. As I mentioned yesterday, Lindzen appears to have nearly lost it in his interview with PSU investigation committee:

When told that the first three allegations against Dr. Mann were dismissed at the inquiry stage of the RA-lO process, Dr. Lindzen’s response was: “It’s thoroughly amazing. I mean these are issues that he explicitly stated in the emails. I’m wondering what’s going on?”

Lindzen answered his own question in an email to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, giving his reaction to the PSU report:

But Richard S. Lindzen, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor of meteorology who disagrees with Mann’s work, called the school’s investigation a “whitewash.” Lindzen was interviewed by the Penn State panel during its investigation.

“Penn State has clearly demonstrated that it is incapable of monitoring violations of scientific standards of behavior internally,” Lindzen said in an e-mail from France.

As far as I know, Lindzen has not cited any specific evidence of wrongdoing; apparently, he’s in the “emails speak for themselves” school of thought. (Never mind that the various “climategate”  accusations have been proven false over and over again).  As far as I know, the closest Lindzen has come to substantiating his insinuations was in his Wall Street Journal op-ed piece, a couple of weeks after the release of the stolen CRU emails.

Claims that climate change is accelerating are bizarre. There is general support for the assertion that GATA has increased about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since the middle of the 19th century. The quality of the data is poor, though, and because the changes are small, it is easy to nudge such data a few tenths of a degree in any direction. Several of the emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) that have caused such a public ruckus dealt with how to do this so as to maximize apparent changes. [Emphasis added]

At least it’s clear that Lindzen thinks it obvious that temperature data sets or reconstructions have been fudged.  Shouldn’t someone call him on the lack of any actual evidence for this extraordinary assertion?

Morano, of course has no such qualms about Lindzen’s reliability. Indeed, Morano’s covering his bets by pointing to Lindzen’s recent comments as well as  his own. After reading Morano’s screed, many Morano contacts may find Lindzen’s comments downright mild and reasonable. Others, especially in the blogosphere, may prefer Morano’s own over-the-top rhetoric. Either way, Morano gets his message out.

This is not the first time Lindzen has played a key role in propagating, and even crafting, contrarian memes. Lindzen is an indefatigable proponent of the “global warming has paused” meme; for example, in the same WSJ piece referenced above he claimed:

Consider that the measurement used, the globally averaged temperature anomaly (GATA), is always changing. Sometimes it goes up, sometimes down, and occasionally—such as for the last dozen years or so—it does little that can be discerned.

Less known is the fact that Lindzen actually originated the bogus “no statistically siginificant warming since 1995” talking point that later tripped up CRU scientist Phil Jones. That particular gambit started out as a March 2008 email coaching Anthony Watts in the finer points of disinformation (a.k.a. rhetorical statistics):

Look at the attached.  There has been no warming since 1997 and no statistically significant warming since 1995.  Why bother with the arguments about an El Nino anomaly in 1998?  (Incidentally, the red fuzz represents the error ‘bars’.)

Best wishes,


And we all know what Morano did with that one – eventually.

This time, it probably won’t take that long. Now that Morano and Lindzen have told them what to say, and even given them a menu of rhetorical options, will the likes of the Wall Street Journal and the National Post keep silent for long? Not likely.


51 responses to “Morano and Lindzen: Mann exoneration a “whitewash”

  1. Pete Dunkelberg

    Meanwhile back in the real world, there is nothing to whitewash in the first place. The deniers are still carrying on a vendetta over their lost battle against the hockey stick.

  2. carrot eater

    I didn’t think any of the sceptic-highlighted emails had anything to do with the modern CRU temperature record. What’s Lindzen talking about?

  3. Timothy Chase

    “Penn State has clearly demonstrated that it is incapable of monitoring violations of scientific standards of behavior internally,” Lindzen said in an e-mail from France.

    Cue Cuccinelli, apparently.

  4. The people who still think that the hockey stick is a valid piece of science and a result of honest research should be treated medically.

    Mr Mann was “cleared” of things that he has explicitly stated to have done. Of course, this “clearing” only works in the eyes of the group of people described in the previous paragraph.

    [DC: It appears the ever-smiling, ever-deluded Lumo is feeling left out.

    Indeed, Morano has linked to Motl’s latest libelous screed, which comes complete with a photoshopped picture of Mann in prison garb.

    In case that doesn’t make clear just who is in need of being “treated medically”, let’s recall this exchange from Motl’s previous visit here. ]

    • I just wonder..

      Do you ever look into the mirror before logging on and think: “today, I will be using my power of logic”?

      This is merely a modest suggestion on my part, but doing so might prevent you from playing the part of the deluded troll.

      Of course, if a deluded troll is what you want to be, carry on. I love the laughs you provide.

  5. Gavin's Pussycat

    ‘Rhetorical statistics’. Loved that one.

  6. Ian Forrester

    At least Harvard did the honorable thing with dishonest scientists, when will MIT do the same?

    • Good question Ian. IMO, the email that Lindzen sent to Watts is grounds for scientific misconduct; Lindzen is coaching Watts on how to avoid getting a stat. sig. warming trend in the SAT data for goodness’ sakes! Maybe someone in the USA reading this would kindly pursue this further.

      I am also not aware of Mann et al. going around in public making baseless accusations of fraud against their fellow scientists. I for one find it odd that MIT is OK with Lindzen’s sometimes disgraceful behaviour in the the public domain.

  7. Ian Forrester asks a great question. Of course we all know the answer. NO!

  8. Robert Murphy

    I just peaked at Motl’s rant, and I find it staggering that someone who speaks of a lack of morality among climate scientists rather openly hints at real physical violence against them:

    “Those people may feel comfortable in their ivory towers but let me tell them that they’re human trash and organized criminals and we will eventually give them what they deserve. No Tora Bora will be safe enough for them.”

    Mann is now the Taliban and Bin Laden?

    That’s the guy telling us we need to take our meds?

    [DC: He’s a piece of work all right. ]

  9. Pingback: Tweets that mention Morano and Lindzen: Mann exoneration a “whitewash” « Deep Climate --

  10. caerbannog

    Luboš Motl is a talented physicist just like Hans Reiser is a talented software developer!

  11. Love the idea that DC, the lagomorph, Joe Romm and the Guardian (fer chrissake!) constitute the ‘extreme blogosphere.’

    And this coming from someone who openly speaks of ‘giving [opponents] what they deserve’ and who feels no qualms about comparing them to al Qaeda. Some folks really cannot see themselves from the outside, can they?

    And what an incredibly duff piece of photoshopping what Mann graphic is… oh, I’ve just spotted ‘during an interview in front of a prison cell’! What can one say?

  12. I find it odd that Lindzen complains that this is a “whitewash”, when he was in fact given an opportunity to participate.

    Does that now make Lindzen part of the alleged “global conspiracy”?

  13. Several blogs are emphasizing that the report does not validate the science, which is true. This was done earlier. See

  14. No investigation carried out by the very organisation that is being investigated, is ever likely to be anything but a whitewash.

    What is needed in this case, is investigation by people not paid by the state, and given access to whatever they ask to see.

    [DC: That sounds like a witch hunt by a mob, and the very opposite of rule by law.

    “What is needed” to proceed against Mann is actual evidence of misconduct, of which there is absolutely none. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that his attackers have misrepresented the stolen email content. ]

  15. Why does anyone believe that PSU would do anything other than “exonerate” one of their own? There is too much money and status at stake for them to do anything else.

    Inviting Lindzen to comment on 1 of 4 allegations is hardly evidence of good faith on the part of PSU. If they really wanted to have an fair inquiry they would have invited McIntrye to comment and required Mann to answer McIntrye’s evidence directly without the usual evasions, strawmen and ad homs which Mann uses when speaking out.

    I see a lot of parallels between the PSU report and the initial ‘self exoneration’ by the RCMP for the tasering death at the Vancouver Airport. We only got to find out what really happened after inquiry was handed over to judge with subpoena powers and witnesses testifying under oath. We need the same with the climategate emails.

    [DC: McIntyre did communicate with the committee, and they did ask Mann about his allegation. It seems McIntyre alleges that a file sent to him by Scott Rutherford (and which apparently contained errors) had been created the previous year and had been used in previous research. There is no actual evidence for this. And it’s not even clear what the alleged misconduct is in this case.

    And there will be outside scrutiny. The PSU reports will be examined by the National Science Foundation to ensure that the misconduct charges were properly dealt with.

    See this Brian Angliss piece for a discussion of the extreme unlikelihood of a so-called whitewash.

    The real problem is there is no actual evidence of misconduct. ]

    • Gavin's Pussycat

      Actually DC, the situation is much stronger than Brian Angliss outlines. Not only is Mann’s monetary value to the university way too small to justify the risk of a whitewash, if you think about it his ‘nuisance value’ is negative, and will continue to be, as a lightning rod for the denial industry. The self-interested, easy thing to do would be to throw Mann to the wolves.

      If they don’t do this, one may wonder why not. A sense of fairness perhaps?

      [DC: Not mention integrity, and even courage. Someone has to stand up to these powerful bullies. ]

  16. AGW Skeptic

    [DC: Unsubstantiated and unfounded accusations of fraud are not permitted here. Thanks! ]

  17. No evidence of misconduct? Try again. The emails have a lot of prima facie evidence. For example, Mann agreed to delete emails subject to an FOI at the request of Jones. The PSU inquiry simply took Mann’s word. That is not good enough. They should have published the emails that were not deleted so the public could decide for themselves whether the claim was credible.

    [DC: There you go again. There is no email where Mann indicates that he “agreed” to do this – only that there was a request. You also forgot to mention that Mann did produce his archive of the emails in question for the inquiry. Since you continue to post misleading information, you are no longer welcome here. Thanks!]

    In any case, all the PSU inquiry does is confirm that academic scientists have no business getting involved in government policy discussions because they are unable/unwilling to hold themselves to ethical/professional standards that the public has a right to expect from them.

    [DC: There is a lack of professional and ethical standards at media outlets such as Fox News and the National Post, which continue to spew forth falsehoods about climate science. That’s the real scandal here.

  18. As I said above: if Mann does have the emails in question they should have been released with the report. There is no excuse for keeping the secret. The fact that they were not released suggests that 1) PSU committee is not being honest or 2) PSU committee does not understand its obligation to the public.

    [DC: So now the PSU committee is part of the conspiracy. ]

    Bias it the media is quite irrelevent since people have a choice of media outlets. People cannot choose the scientists that contribute to the IPCC. That means scientists have an obligation to meet ethical and professional standards that do not apply to people who are not being granted special authority by society.

    [DC: So it’s all right for certain media outlets to put forth falsehood after falsehood and refuse to correct them, simply because we can get the truth elsewhere. That’s an interesting take on journalistic standards and ethics. I vehemently disagree – the media have a special role and responsibility in society. Too many are failing in that, whether due to bias or incompetence. ]

    You can defend PSU farce as much as you want but until I see some serious reforms to the scientific establishment I will put climate scientists into the same category I put trial lawyers and used car salesmen.

    [DC: That may be, but you’ll have to do it somewhere else, as I said previously. Thanks!]

    • Gavin's Pussycat


      Note that the investigation committee members were from various other fields of science not climatology. So now all those fields, and presumably science as a whole, is downgraded to the level of credibility of used car salesmen etc. (you forgot journalists). Cute.

      BTW those emails are CONFIDENTIAL. Don’t you have enough raw material for malicious misrepresentation yet?

  19. AGW Skeptic

    There has been no statistically significant warming since 1995. Get over it already!

    [DC: As has been explained time and time again, this is meaningless talking point based on cherrypicking the year just short of the period necessary establishing statistical significance. And I’m not sure that it even holds any more for 1995, so you will soon have to cherrypick a new date.

    Perhaps you don’t know any better. But Lindzen should. ]

  20. There definitely hasn’t been a cooling since 1995.

    So I guess that puts AGW denial in the wrong, doesn’t it.

  21. DC rejects a real investigation of Mann (and presumably likewise Jones and the whole IPCC clique), on the grounds that it is “mob rule” for just anyone to be allowed to investigate. He wants only state-sanctioned lackeys to investigate their fellow state lackeys, so we can continue rest assured that the politically correct conclusion will trump the objectively correct one, by ensuring that no real damning evidence is considered or even searched for.
    IOW, in your heart you know there’s fraud afoot, you just happen to like it.

    [DC: Oh, so now *I’m* part of the conspiracy covering up the fraud.

    This so-called “real” investigation is an interesting legal concept, where the accuser gets to conduct the investigation.

    And while you are claiming that PSU’s internal investigation was conducted by “state sanctioned” lackeys, you also presume to know the “objectively correct” outcome. And yet you continue to evince a breathtaking ignorance of the actual facts.

    Let’s move on to real acadamic scandals that have yet to be properly investigated. Like Eward Wegman and Yasmin Said at George Mason University and political science professor Barry Cooper’s bogus research fund at the University of Calgary.

    Not to mention the bogus Barton investigation, which was clearly biased and partisan.

    And, yes, I’ve had about enough of your nonsense. I’m sure that will come as a relief to other readers.]

    • DC,

      “I’m sure that will come as a relief to other readers”.

      Indeed DC. Although, the rants by those in denial about AGW are quite revealing, and sometimes even entertaining. Sad that they fail to recognize that the diatribes/rants in question are quite effective at sabotaging their credibility.

  22. And to settle the issue of whether the science malpractice seen in the Climategate tapes is somehow “out of context”, as IPCC apologists maintain, what is needed is for the remainder of the emails to be released. But, of course, releasing information of what actually is goes on, is something strenuously resisted by those same apologists. Which is why some ‘Deep Climate’ person at UEA/CRU ended up releasing Climategate clandestinely.

    [DC: No, all you have to do is actually read the whole of the emails in question, plus a few others, instead of just relying on McIntyre’s misrepresentations and carefully edited version.

    By the way, the “whistleblower/anonymous insider” theory is preposterous on its face, especially McIntyre’s version where he claims that the archive may have been created as part of the FOI process.

    And I suppose this “insider” also hacked into RealClimate, took control of the website, and posted the link to the stolen emails there. ]

  23. AGW Skeptic

    so you will soon have to cherrypick a new date like we did to “prove” that AGW is happening

    All fixed.

    [DC: You seem unclear on the concept of “cherrypicking”. The fact is that global warming is established with statistical significance if you start at *any* year in the 20th century before 1995.

    Congratulations on your epic fail (a.k.a. as “own goal”). ]

  24. I. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to
    suppress or falsify data?
    2. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to
    delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4,as
    suggested by Phil Jones?
    3. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any misuse of privileged or
    confidential information available to you in your capacity as an academic scholar?
    4. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously
    deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing,
    conducting, or reporting research, or other scholarly activities?

    The Penn State Inquiry said the first three charges did not require an inquiry along the lines fo what they were doing for charge 4. I don’t think it is ridiculous for Lindzen to be surprised by this. I think if you told people in January, that one of these charges would get an extended investigation, most people would ahve picked #2.

    [DC: As previously mentioned, the first three charges dealt with three specific misconduct offences outlined in the PSU code. The fourth catch-all offence was harder for an inqury to deal with, simply because that clause is so vague.

    There was an inquiry of course for all the charges. I assume you mean an investigation, which was done only for the fourth charge.

    Lindzen was not clear on exactly charge what he claimed was proven in the emails, but judging from his comments quoted above he seems to be leaning toward # 1. Who knows though – maybe he thinks all three were proven in the emails (he refers to “issues” in the plural).

    Maybe some day someone will actually question him on this and get him to clarify this. Of course, he would probably prefer to simply continue to insinuate, since he appears unable to substantiate his allegations, or even spell out what they are. ]

  25. Punk, you still have failed to tell us who would head this investigation.

    Who could do it without being labeled partisan?

    [DC: No doubt it would be some “honest broker”, i.e. someone who has proved his impartiality by accusing climate scientists of “lying” and “stealing scientific ideas”, while scrupulously avoiding any criticism of the critics of climate science. Such an investigator should also have as little scientific credibility as possible. ]

    • Gavin's Pussycat

      Nah… you cannot mean Roger Rabbit?

      And does he have to be male? I know one spice girl from Georgia…

  26. CRU cleared in the latest investigation. This BBC article (which unfortunately quotes a hack “skeptic” for balance) has the details:

    The investigators could not completely conceal their disgust with the “skeptics” that had been hounding the CRU, as this excerpt reveals (emphasis added):

    The review concludes these allegations are unfounded.

    “We find that CRU was not in a position to withhold access to such data or tamper with it,” it says.

    “We demonstrated that any independent researcher can download station data directly from primary sources and undertake their own temperature trend analysis”.

    Writing computer code to process the data “took less than two days and produced results similar to other independent analyses. No information from CRU was needed to do this”.

    Sir Muir commented: “So we conclude that the argument that CRU has something to hide does not stand up”.

    Asked whether it would be reasonable to conclude that anyone claiming instrumental records were unavailable or vital code missing was incompetent, another panel member, Professor Peter Clarke from Edinburgh University, said: “It’s very clear that anyone who’d be competent enough to analyse the data would know where to find it.

    “It’s also clear that anyone competent could perform their own analysis without let or hindrance.”

  27. It probably would. But Punk is refusing so it’s not possible to say any different.

    If he *does* manage to find someone with relevant knowledge and not partisan, AND they were asked about the case, would Punk then accuse them of selling out?

    Reckon so.

    ‘course even if he didn’t, someone else would merely discard Punk’s list as partisan whitewashers.

    But Punk can’t come up with a list is my assertion. And by keeping mum over it, he’s proving it.

  28. John Mashey

    At the risk of committing the same diversion:

    can you give me any evidence or rationale why Punksta’s opinions:
    a) Carry any weight
    b) Are worth posting about
    c) Are worth diluting yet another thread
    d) and why, a year from now, revisiting this thread, you would say “yes, commenting on punksta was a good use of my time.”
    [These are actual questions, not assertions taht the answers must be no.]

    I usually find the following a good general rule:
    IUOUI: Ignore Unsupported Opinions of Unidentifiable Individuals

    Thank goodness DC exercises reasonable editorial control in the face of silliness, as the latter can totally degrade the S/N ratio of useful threads, almost certainly on purpose (in general, if not necessarily specifically here).

    [DC: Yes, I would prefer to move on. Perhaps some general discussion of the Muir-Russell report (with particular commentary to come)?]

  29. Ignore Unsupported Opinions of Unidentifiable Individuals

    Since I can’t identify you (or “DC”, for that matter), I guess I’ll just have to ignore your unsupported opinions then.

    [DC: John Mashey is identifiable, but more importantly is a well known purveyor of well-supported opinions. ]

  30. I don’t have any evidence.

    Punk can’t supply any evidence either (or, at best for him, he has not supplied any yet). However, what he COULD do is supply us with a list of people who he considers impartial and appropriate to investigate this matter.

    At that point, if his list is good, we know that in this case, he has something.

    If the list is bad (e.g. Glen Beck, McIntyre, etc) then we have evidence that he has nothing.

    That punk hasn’t supplied a list either

    a) shows he knows anyone he wants to look into this is partisan (this is why I used that requirement earlier)


    b) shows he doesn’t know anyone who could do it (making his claim that “someone” should do the investigation properly pointless rhetoric)

    But lets see if Punk can prove us wrong, hmm?

    The null hypothesis is (b) above, his is meaningless rhetoric (evidence: all the other people were biased, if he can’t think of anyone nonpartisan and competent to investigate, then he must consider anyone and everyone to be wrong for the job)

    Let him prove that null hypothesis wrong.

  31. PS When it comes to a thread about how exoneration is a whitewash, I don’t think that asking someone who proclaims it a whitewash who should do it is OT.

  32. PPS it would be for ANYONE who proclaims that this investigation (or any of the others into Mann, CRU, et al) was a whitewash and “someone” should do a proper one to let people know who they want to do it.

    note: there was a diehard skeptic in the MP review into the CRU who would have, before the investigation, have been “accepted” by people like Punk if they had been asked. However, after the review, that Labour MP was branded part of the conspiracy.

    The same has been done with the NAS investigation into the M&M accusations. AFTER the NAS report was made, it was a whitewash. IIRC, beforehand, the denialosphere were crowing about how the IPCC were going to be found out.

    Same with surfacestations. Lauded as the proof of Watts accusations in potentia until after the data was collected and showed no such thing. Then buried. If it hadn’t been Watts’ work, it would have been given the “whitewash” treatment.

    I want to see these complainers of the investigations nailed down to who THEY want investigating.

    Then the partisanship of those who would whitewash the denialist meme into the investigation can be ascertained.

    But until we get solid names, we can’t see if they are nonpartisan and competent to investigate, so they get to call “whitewash” on any investigation that doesn’t give them the “right” answer.

  33. The only way a whitewash can be avoided, is if
    – all emails are published
    – anyone at all is allowed to investigate whatever they wish
    – anyone on government money is obliged to produce whatever relevant information is requested of them, on pain of going to prison and having all their related publications set aside.

    [DC: I’m letting this through for Mark’s benefit.

    It should be noted that many IPCC critics have received “government money” (Edward Wegman), or even government salaries (Barton staffer Peter Spencer). And, unlike the case of the Mann or the CRU scientists, there exists actual prima facie evidence of misconduct in these cases.

    It’s pretty clear that the last thing that interests Punksta and other like-minded critics is a fair and non-partisan investigation. Rather, they prefer endless witch hunts directed at anyone by anyone.

    Now that that is abundantly clear, let’s move on. ]

  34. Punk, anyone can be biased. In fact, they are.

    And almost everyone is not competent.

    For DC’s et al benefit, earlier on I asked why you keep asking for an investigation given that no matter who investiages, you call it a whitewash and asked if you liked money being spent in investigations futilely.

    You responded at that time that you wanted someone INDEPENDENT to investigate.

    But now you’re saying that there should be NO investigation.

    So why do you keep calling for money to be spent in an investigation when whoever does it is going to be partisan?

    The only reason I can see is that you like to waste taxpayer money.

  35. No, I am actually saying is that any number of investigations should be permitted.
    And to avoid yet more whitewashes, what we need is for ALL the emails to be released, ie including those not included by the ‘Deep Climate’ whistleblower at UEA.

    Note that this need not incur much taxpayer money at all.

    [DC: In that case, you should be demanding all the emails of Joe Barton’s staffers, the Wegman report co-authors, contributors and reviewers, as well as Ross McKitrick and Stephen McIntyre, so we can get to the bottom of the biased and shoddy scholarship of the Wegman Report, not to mention the manifestly partisan and biased Barton investigation.

    At least in that case there is actual evidence of misconduct. ]

  36. By all means let all taxpayer-funded work be made completely transparent to the public.

    And let all supposedly reviewed papers whose data is not made available, be immediately set aside.

    [DC: Again, that would include the Wegman Report. For one thing it wasn’t reviewed as that term is normally understood. Despite Wegman’s laughable claim that he did submit to a peer review process “similar” to that of the 2006 NAS report, the review appears to have been ad hoc and consisted of sending it around to a few colleagues and acquaintances, most of whom appeared to have even less relevant experience than Wegman’s team. The one written email “review” that was read into the congressional record at the last minute was a confused, incoherent (and mercifully brief) endorsement of the report.

    And Wegman has still not released promised data after four years. On the other hand Mann et al 2008 is a model of transparency. So let’s accept Mann et al, and throw out Wegman et al.

    The most transparent temperature series is undoubtedly GISTemp (NASA). The least is probably the UAH satellite series. So by all means let’s rely on GisTemp and throw out UAH. ]

  37. No, you and your sheeple friends have been clamouring for an investigation. Every time one has been made, the result hasn’t been to your liking and “whitewash” is the scream of you girls.

    You wanted independent, but YOU aren’t independent. See for example, your blase dismissal of any of M&M’s failures, the vampire letters and so on that show malfeasance on the part of the denial machine.

    YOU are not independent.

    So YOU can’t do it.

    Without independence, you cannot prove that your investigation is accurate and unbiased.

    PS how much of their emails do you expect to get when no time (time IS money, remember!) can be spent on getting these made available? How can they mail it when a stamp would have to be paid for? How can they email it or leave it on a webserver when the bandwidth and hosting has to be paid for? The very ACT of getting all the data out will cost, but you don’t want to pay for it.

    Besides, why haven’t you found something you can take to a court in the emails that were leaked? Or something in the GISS Model E code freely available, or the freely available US global dataset?

    If you haven’t found anything, you have no case.

    If you haven’t TRIED, then why not do that, since it will not cost anything.

    If YOU don’t want to do it, then who should? Why haven’t they done what I’ve suggested above?

    Because there’s no case to answer.

  38. Pingback: Punto final al Climategate: George Monbiot se retracta de sus peticiones de dimisión tras el ‘Informe Russell’ « Usted no se lo cree

  39. Very little time or money will be needed to put up the remainder of the UEA emails on an FTP site. Indeed volunteers would probably do both for nothing.

    This would put everyone in a much better position to assess the basic honesty of the IPCC group. The only reason to NOT support this, is if you think it will simply strengthen the already strong Climategate evidence that they are dishonest.

    [DC: Oh, I see. Never mind rules. Never mind privacy of others. Just put everything up so you can quote more emails out of context.

    However, perhaps you could start with a very limited request. Why don’t you ask to have all the emails, telephone logs dates of meetings etc. concerning all communication and contact between McIntyre, McKitrick, Wegman and/or Barton and other congressional staffers and politicians. McIntyre could put them up on ClimateAudit.

    And I take it that according to you, the Wegman Report should be thrown out, and the participants possibly thrown in jail, because they haven’t played by your rules.

    Or do your rules only apply to those you disagree with?]

    • Gavin's Pussycat

      Yes, and while we’re at it, let’s force pregnant rape victims to marry their rapists. In the name of, you know, family values…

      Everybody knows victims are losers. Just make them suffer more, they’re used to it.

  40. Never mind that the passage in question was specifically addressing whether Mann had strayed outside accepted practices in proposing research. That charge was not even alleged, and only addressed by the PSU inqury committee in an effort to address every possible violation of the code of conduct.

    Well, it was alleged, wasn’t it?:

    “4. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously
    deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing,
    conducting, or reporting research, or other scholarly activities?”

    [DC: There were no official allegations as there was no official complaint. The PSU inquiry simply looked at all possible violations of the code of conduct, clause by clause.

    In general, the Climategate “allegations” as seen in the blogosphere and right-wing press, centred on falsification or suppression of data and other information (“hide the decline” etc.), at least as far as Mann was concerned.

    “Accepted practice” might refer to such items as data sharing, which was certainly an issue raised against Phil Jones and CRU. However that issue had already been resolved long before with respect to Mann. After all, Mann et al 2008 released all the data and code, way more than almost all other climate scientists, or most scientists in any field for that matter – way more than “skeptics” like Lindzen, Christy and Spencer.

    By the way, why aren’t folks jumping up and down for UAH code? There’s a temperature record in serious need of “auditing”.]

  41. Many thans for your answer! 🙂

  42. “Very little time or money will be needed to put up the remainder of the UEA emails on an FTP site.”

    Bandwidth is not free.

    And storage is not free.

    So are you willing to pay for the bandwidth and storage costs, Punk? Business class internet access isn’t the same as your home DSL.

    [DC: The cost is not really the issue, as I am sure Marc Morano’s sponsors would eagerly put up the money. Or perhaps whoever paid for the hacking and dissemination of the emails in the first place would pay a little more to finish the job.

    The real problem is that those who perpetrated the crimes continue to operate free of any accountability or transparency whatsoever. As do those who took advantage of out-of-context quotes to spew manifestly false accusations (including McIntyre, McKitrick and large segments of the right-wing press) . ]

  43. “[DC: The cost is not really the issue, as I am sure Marc Morano’s sponsors would eagerly put up the money.”

    They aren’t, though, are they.

    They want UK taxpayers to pay.

    Punk isn’t willing to pay either.

    The real problem is that even if they HAD all the emails they wouldn’t be able to prove any wrongdoing that invalidates the science.

    “The real problem is that those who perpetrated the crimes continue to operate free of any accountability or transparency whatsoever.”

    Which is why they should pay for access and storage.

    Yes, Morano IS guilty. If not by actual act, by enabling and funding criminal activity. Hiring someone to commit a crime is a crime too.

    Of course, if Morano wants to open up all correnspondence to public view to prove that this accusation is false, I’m sure we can all have a whip-round for it.

    And I’m sure Punk would agree: it wouldn’t cost much nor take much time for Morano to cough up all emails he’s ever made. It’s not as if there’s five of him like employees at CRU, so five times easier!