Climategate scientist cleared
Michael E. Mann, Penn State University 
Link
EMAIL
Stumble
Tweet
link:
| « Previous Is algae oil really a clean fuel? | Next » Sierra Club launches activist network |
Comments(69)
Posted By mrsleep - Thu, Mar 11 2010 at 5:10 PM ESTOMG!
What if we create a better, less polluted world for nothing?!
Doesn't anyone think of big business' profits?
Posted By James Smith João Pessoa, Brazil - Mon, Mar 08 2010 at 9:45 AM ESTToo Bad, no one will care
First, none of the neo-con morons will read this and, even if it's shoved in their faces, they will refuse to believe it. Fantasy is easier than facts.
Facts require thinking and logic. This explains politics, religion, the WWE, and NASCAR.
Posted By Scott - Thu, Mar 11 2010 at 2:20 AM EST"Facts Require Thinking"
Oh, and reading I would think. Read the comments below, obviously your "neo-con morons" did read this article. Oh, and look, they're the ones presenting actual numbers and science instead of the ad hominem attacks like yours.
Facts require thinking and logic. This explains why the CAGW crowd can't get it right.
Posted By Techy - Wed, Mar 03 2010 at 4:03 PM ESTCoders Know the Score
I found on the web the compressed files containing all the eMail of prof jones. This compressed file also contains programs. More precisely Prolog routines. I am a software developer for 20 years and had a look at the code of these programs. In the module called briffa_sep_98_d.pro, one can read these lines of code:
.....
yyy=reform(compmxd(*,2,1))
;mknormal,yyy,timey,refperiod=[1881,1940]
;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
Posted By kirk - Sat, Mar 06 2010 at 1:08 PM ESTCode Comments are Useful
So 20 years ago someone noted exactly, precisely where a hack was needed, how to find it again later, how to correct it when new data came along and you claim it's evidence of malfeasance?
When you come to a fork in the road - flip a coin and write it down. The comment did not say "this is completely great - ignore this".
Posted By Physics Grad - Mon, Mar 01 2010 at 7:50 PM ESTAGW is a half baked idea
Climate change is caused primarily by solar activity & variations in our solar orbit.
Greenhouse gases are only one variable to consider when building a theory to model climate change.
CO2 is only a minor greenhouse gas; the most influential gas is H2O (water vapor). CO2 is a very minor part of a small variable – and the man made portion of this is even more miniscule – significantly less than 1 percent of all atmospheric CO2.
Al Gore's AGW movement conveniently.... More
Posted By RL Stephenson MS Chemistry - Thu, Feb 25 2010 at 9:38 AM ESTSo what is YOUR answer, skeptics?
Interesting article! PR is definitely needed.
To the skeptics:
Arctic definitely melting - You say "no global warming"
Antarctic melting/calving highest rate ever - You say "no global warming"
Greenland ice melting - You say "no global warming"
85% of all glaciers melting away - you say 15% are not!
Ocean temperatures increasing - you say "its a lie!"
Bad data thrown out - you say "Deception!!!"
Have you ever looked at REAL DATA in your life?.... More
Posted By JB - Thu, Mar 11 2010 at 6:36 PM ESTReply to: So what is YOUR answer...
Bolivian glaciers have evaporated due to cooling temperatures, drier climate and zero snowfall for over a decade. Antarctic ice is expanding due to cooling temperatures and increased precipitation. This results in a higher rate of calving as ice shelves are being pushed out into the open ocean.
It is suggested that you begin to research some of what you are claiming in order to continue with some intelligence concerning this discussion.
Posted By Physics Grad - Mon, Mar 01 2010 at 7:58 PM ESTHello chicken little
Your post lacks any credibility. Your rant only demonstrates that have no science background. Go back to school and when you can offer something factual to the debate feel free to return and post it.
Posted By Mike - Wed, Feb 24 2010 at 7:15 AM ESTScientists MUST Change
I disagree with the comment "...we can't expect scientists to change." with regards to their PR skills.
Scientists have been changing in this context and must to do so. In my field (astrophysics) it is no longer acceptable to spend 5 years working on some esoteric subject only to mumble about it at coffee break. The world has moved on. If you don't communicate your work, then you don't (or at least, shouldn't) receive recognition or funding. Simple as that. To say "I'm a scientist, I.... More
Posted By Idiot - Sun, Feb 21 2010 at 7:12 PM ESTI took a graph once and it pointed out you are an idiot.
So its a fact, get over it. You are an idiot because my unverified graph that only considers a fraction of the variables would lead a layman to believe that you are idiot. So its true. Stop denying it.
Posted By Reason - Thu, Feb 18 2010 at 3:32 AM ESTBiased
What a biased article; the author conveniently left out much of the story. Just because many scientists agree to a theory, it doesn't mean that it is the absolute truth; there are also many who happen to disagree. Try looking at both sides of the issue, instead of blindly following one and bashing the other side.
Posted By RL Stephenson MS Chemistry - Thu, Feb 25 2010 at 10:04 AM ESTYou missed the point
It is not that "many scientists" agree to a theory. It is that ALMOST ALL scientists agree to the theory, but the viral social networking of the GOP basement dweller non-believers has been more effective, and the PR of the scientists that have actually looked at the real data has be pretty lame. They are not marketers, they are scientists. They do science well, but never learned the social networking game.
Posted By Travis - Mon, Feb 15 2010 at 9:14 PM ESTYou, my friend, are ignorant
There was far more to the Climategate scandal than the word trick. This was one situation where people somehow misinterpreted the word "trick", coming from greedy men, as negative. How about deleting data? Anything to say about that? As a scientist, I can say with absolute certainty that YOU NEVER DELETE DATA. Ever, period. So, can I have one response from a global warming advocate as to why these "scientists", a.k.a. whores, deleted data. They explicitly talked about deleting data in.... More
Posted By RL Stephenson MS Chemistry - Thu, Feb 25 2010 at 9:56 AM ESTYes you do.
You delete weather data when it isn't usable in a climatic study. Short term data cannot be used to make climatic studies.
Posted By John A. Jauregui - Mon, Feb 15 2010 at 10:21 AM ESTDenier Dogs
Michael, you are absolutely right on target. Who in their right mind could or would argue that an infinitesimal trace (.04%) gas essential to life on this planet, with an astronomical Global Warming Potential (GWP) index of 1 (one), is not responsible for runaway Global Warming? Keep the faith, baby, and beat these ignorant, Luddite, denier dogs to death.
Posted By DiggerUK - Fri, Feb 12 2010 at 10:52 AM ESTInvestigategate.
Enter your comments here
This global racket is unravelling like a slow train crash.
The railway engineer can't put this back on the tracks.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7219070/Clima...
What next, an investigation of the
Posted By The Smith - Mon, Feb 08 2010 at 7:39 AM ESTI have no words. Oh wait, yes I do.
It is, I have discovered, a widely held belief that anyone who states opposition to this religion known as anthropogenic global warming (That would mean 'human caused' for those of you who don't like big words) is accused of being on the pay-role of the auto industry or some other evil spirited entity. So let's think logically on that for a moment.There are 24 million possibilities found on Google search for "Global warming blogs" Let's assume that each of those blogs has about 20 replies. That's.... More
Posted By John A. Jauregui - Sat, Feb 06 2010 at 1:10 PM ESTTake Responsibility and Take Action
The coverups and whitewashes continue. Are you angry about this obvious RICO Act fraud and the national media's complicity in the cover-up, misinformation, reframing and misdirection of the issue and the related “carbon derivatives” market Obama’s Administration is spinning up? Why pay for propaganda? Take responsibility and take action. STOP all donations to the political party(s) responsible for this fraud. STOP donations to all environmental groups which funded this Global.... More
Posted By Morgan - Sat, Feb 06 2010 at 12:50 PM ESTBelieving or Not isn't going to stop it.
We know the icecaps are melting. We know huge ice drifts are breaking off Antarctica. We know glaciers are receding at an alarming rate. So,believe it , don't believe it. It is still going to happen. Personally, I believe it cannot be stopped. Nature will take its course. No one knows the final results and humanity will probably survive.
Those in this world who want to play the carbon trading game will never help because they will just continue to add to the problem(for the all mighty.... More
Posted By Dranella - Sat, Feb 06 2010 at 12:48 PM ESTWonder what the result would have been...
... if the inquiry was done by a non-partisan organisation?
And no - I'm sorry to disappoint you - Climategate is far from over. Without Climategate the global warming believers would still go around thinking the glaciers at Himalaya was melting and would be gone in 2035!!!!
Posted By Sam Hall - Sun, Feb 07 2010 at 9:12 PM ESTre: Wonder what the result would have been...
Actually, the IPCC error about Himalayan glaciers was unrelated to the Climategate emails. Scientists were the ones who pointed it out.
Posted By John - Sat, Feb 06 2010 at 4:17 AM ESTTrillions Speak
The carbon trade was forecast to trillions. It was billions last year, clearly enough to motivate anyone to haze every greenie in sight. Think of all the agendas, like car companies who have inversted in hybrids, like investors investing in tree farms, like banks backing carbon as one of the world's biggest commodities. Face it the green agenda has been HIJACKED and there are so many agendas to peel back. Climate has always changed so why should all climate changes suddenly be attributed to.... More
Posted By Andrew Fynn - Sat, Feb 06 2010 at 9:23 AM ESTEverything ok?
One of the tactics of the Right is to accuse the majority Center of their own tactics - vested financial interests, hijacking agendas. Such accusations are so bewildering that there seems little immediate to say in response, except, Um, are you ok?
Posted By Bob Downs - Sat, Feb 06 2010 at 4:15 AM ESTThe science is settled
but the global warmers still have their religion, cause it sure isn't
science.
Posted By sidevalve - Sat, Feb 06 2010 at 2:31 AM ESTYou can't even spell 'hockey'
What a desperate attempt to revive all the old shibboleths and spin Mann and the hockey stick as purer than pure (despite all the events and evidence pointing in diametrically the oppositie direction). And why in any case would anyone believe a word printed by a news organ that can't even spell the word 'hockey'?
Posted By Mike - Fri, Feb 05 2010 at 8:16 PM ESTManufactroversy
The shrieks of the denialists get louder and louder the stronger the science gets. This exoneration of Mann is sending them into a frothing tizzy. The giant conspiracy they envision gets bigger and wilder every time. All the denialist camp has left is character assassination; there's no evidence, no science at all backing up their claims. That still doesn't stop them from continuing to repeat and bleat the same debunked assertions over and over and over.
Posted By John Doe - Fri, Feb 05 2010 at 7:47 PM ESTHow could you lie to your readers?
""After a team of paid hackers illegally infiltrated the e-mail servers of the University of E. Anglia..."
Straight out lie! Your readers deserve some honesty! Stop misleading your readers! Get your facts straight first!
Posted By Andrew Fynn - Sat, Feb 06 2010 at 9:02 AM ESTWho bought John DoeTM. Real people have real names.
Does "John Doe" get paid per word or post?
2009 was the year that special interests hatched their comeback plan. It all began with Copenhagen and the s*** stirring conducted there. Then in January John Doe and other aliases started their social media/Internet campaign, posting for example to multiple LinkedIn groups, e.g. LEED certified builders, with posts like "Global warming - Fact or Fiction?"
What is new about this campaign is the intelligence of the minds behind it. It's not.... More
Posted By John Doe - Fri, Feb 05 2010 at 7:34 PM ESTWrong! Wrong! Wrong!
"After a team of paid hackers illegally infiltrated the e-mail servers of the University of E. Anglia"
Where is your evidence? For all we know, it could have leaked by a whitleblower.
Mann Hockey Stick had been debunked -- you're still using it to mislead your readers. This is so wrong.
No wonder fewer and fewer believe in global warming craps because of misleading articles such as this one.
When will this scam be put to rest for good?
Posted By paul - Fri, Feb 05 2010 at 5:05 PM ESTA junk article
Fancy trotting out the hockey stick graph. It's totally debunked. The scandal deepens from day to day.
Posted By Tim - Fri, Feb 05 2010 at 5:17 PM ESTSkeptics latest bulletpoint: "Totally Debunked"
At least you all are staying on message.
Posted By Greg - Fri, Feb 05 2010 at 5:03 PM ESTConservation
OK people - Here's the joke. Two guys are walking in the desert and stop at an oasis. They can't see how wide the desert is or if there is another oasis along the way. It could be 2 miles, 20 miles or 200 miles before the find water again. The one man decides to carry as much water as he can in case the desert is wide...The other man decides that his buddy is part of a water conspiracy and takes none. The two men head out into the desert. Which one is the idiot?
Posted By liehater - Wed, Feb 10 2010 at 1:13 PM ESTas above
Your computated joke is just that, a joke, and a poor one at that.
You put rubbish in you get rubbish out.
Posted By Scott - Fri, Feb 05 2010 at 7:31 PM ESTConservation?
Or, closer to reality:
Two men enter a dark house on October 31. They keep encountering zombies, walking skeletons, etc. The first is terrified and, halfway through the house, decides that if he cuts off 1 leg and 1 arm then the undead beings will think he is one of them. The second man says "none of these things have hurt us, I think they're fake and/or illusions". In fact, he then goes back and pulls off some masks and pulls out some power cords, providing evidence that many of there.... More
Posted By Aeiluindae - Tue, Mar 02 2010 at 1:11 PM ESTGreen behaviour is not harmful
Since when was making better houses that don't need as much energy to heat and cool a bad thing? Electric cars are only expensive because there aren't very many of them, and they cost way less than gasoline cars to operate. How is using energy that we won't run out of for the forseeable future a bad thing? Wind farms and solar power don't honestly take as much space as you'd think, either.
So when most of the stuff that people want to do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is good for.... More
Posted By Scott - Thu, Mar 11 2010 at 2:17 AM EST"Not Harmful" and "Right about Global Warming"?
Umm, I agree it's a good thing not to pollute, that just makes sense. But is CO2 pollution? Animals BREATH OUT CO2, and it's FOOD for plants! And that's what sends up all the red flags...CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas relative to other molecules, and it's very low concentration relative to the powerful greenhouse gas water vapor means its effects aren't as bad as one might think. Back on track, cutting CO2 emissions by the recommended 80% would cause ridiculous harm...3rd world countries.... More
Posted By Anonymous - Fri, Feb 05 2010 at 4:17 PM ESTThank you
I really appreciate your article on "cliamtegate" I find it so very interesting that there people out there don't trust 90% of the world's scientists. What do the conservative bloggers that write in get out of reading your site so often? What do the people writing in do that affords them the luxury to read something on a regular basis that they whole-heartedly disagree with? My goodness, I don't care for Glen Beck much so therefore I don't read his blogs or watch his show. I understand.... More
Posted By Paul Clark - Sat, Feb 06 2010 at 5:11 AM ESTRe: Thank you
@anonymous "90% of the world scientists", I think you refer to a voluntary poll where only 1/3 responded. All were climate scientists whose job/career depended on AGW research grants. I think if you included those who didn't respond and a wider random sample you would find quite a difference.
Consider the Oregon petition with 31,000 signatories including 9,000 phDs saying it's hogwash. I don't think the side who is funded to believe in AGW can match anything like that. Anyway, I.... More
Posted By Karl_from_Wylie - Fri, Feb 05 2010 at 4:10 PM ESTPenn State Clears Itself
Internal Investigation concludes..."We're Innocent!!"
Ha ha ha ha ha
"..Move along lady, Nothing to see here."
LOL
Posted By Skeptic - Fri, Feb 05 2010 at 11:12 AM ESTIs this an attempt at sarcasm or irony?
Honestly, your article sounds like a parody of a 'Climategate denier'. That 'hockey stick' has been thoroughly debunked. Perhaps it fools you, but it would not fool anyone who took math and science in High School and graduated.
You can, indeed, get that graph from a set of numbers. What you can't do is get those numbers from an untainted empirical dataset of terrestrial temperatures.
That graph is not just a fake. It is a really clumsy fake. Much of the raw data is available. A lot.... More
Posted By Tim - Fri, Feb 05 2010 at 5:14 PM ESTPracticing for a GOP filibuster?
I mean no disrespect, but I'd like to reply to the content of your comment but I got bored after about three sentences. Comment tip: write shorter comments that people might actually get to the end of. Oh, and on your content? My time is better spent elsewhere.
Posted By Moray Watson - Wed, Feb 10 2010 at 6:37 PM ESTClimategate scientist cleared
Enter your comments here
Tim, would you like us to type slower so that you can keep up?
Posted By J_M - Fri, Feb 05 2010 at 10:28 AM ESTAnalysis of Burkarts article
Burkart your article is so full of holes, let's start at the top.
The title "Climategate scientist cleared" is a partial truth. He was cleared on 3 of 4 charges, as Andrew30 posted "the committee says there is evidence that Mann violated the social contract of science." Kind of like how O.J. was cleared in the criminal court but, found guilty in the civil court. That's not a great analogy but, it's all I have right now. For a better analysis on the Penn State decision go.... More
Posted By Andrew Fynn - Sat, Feb 06 2010 at 9:08 AM ESTYour analysis is not analysis
It is comment.
Posted By Paul Clark - Fri, Feb 05 2010 at 4:41 AM ESTNew world record for denial of reality
Congratulations! Word just in from Guinness world records for a statement of denial: a new world record! Karl, your statement: "Finally the faux scandal which will forever be known as "Climategate" is more or less over." now officially beats Baghdad Bob's: "We blocked them inside the city. Their rear is blocked...."
Posted By Steven Douglas - Mon, Feb 22 2010 at 4:02 AM ESTLOVE IT!
Baghdad Bobs! That is the perfect avatar for climategate denialists everywhere. "We made the skeptics drink poison last night and James Hansen's soldiers and his great forces gave the skeptics a lesson which will not be forgotten by history. Truly."
All this time I was thinking Dan Rather with their, "The evidence may have been fabricated, but that doesn't mean the conclusions that were built on all that fabricated data aren't true."
No, for damage control (sngggt!) Baghdad Bob is perfect. .... More
Posted By Darryl Johnston - Fri, Feb 05 2010 at 3:33 AM ESTPenn State $$$$$ clears Michael $$$$$
Penn State has such a conflict of interest their report means NOTHING. If they didn't clear Mr. Mann they might have to give the money back. Whoa!!! And, that ain't gonna happen, FOR SURE!!!
This is a biased ridiculously incorrect article
Of COURSE they are going to clear Mann of any wrong doing because THE GOVERNMENT WANTS THIS FRAUD TO ISSUE A CAP AND TRADE TAX TO FUND THE NEW WORLD ORDER! I wonder how this world will survive with this many dense people in it that buy this complete fraud. Does the article mention anything about Phil Jones, the "scientist" from East Anglia University who had to resign because of climategate? NOOOO!! Does it mention that Al Gore owns the company that would be issuing the carbon credits?.... More