| |

Larry Bell Contributor


Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.


Contact Larry Bell



Michael Mann And The ClimateGate Whitewash: Part One



Mann emerged as a key figure in many sensational exchanges among influential members of the UK’s East Anglia University Climate Research Unit (CRU) network. Some reveal disturbing scientific improprieties connected with preparation of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Climate Change 2007: Fourth Assessment Report (commonly referred to as AR4).

Two series of exchanges, both involving Mann and CRU’s Director Dr. Phil Jones, are particularly noteworthy. One involves a request from Jones to Mann to delete public records, and pass that instruction on to another colleague. The second, from Jones to other parties, refers to using “Mike’s Nature [Journal] trick” to “hide a decline” in tree ring-derived temperatures during the past half-century that were reported by another researcher.

Following a deluge of letters, emails and telephone calls accusing Mann of bad science practices, Penn State found it prudent to conduct an internal investigation. An Inquiry Committee was appointed to consider four types of allegations — whether he directly or indirectly: 1) suppressed or falsified data; 2) deleted or destroyed emails or other information related to AR4 as suggested by Phil Jones; 3) misused privileged or confidential information; and 4) engaged in any activities that “seriously” deviated from accepted academic practices. They interviewed Mann for “nearly two hours”, and he disclaimed all allegations.

The Committee reportedly “culled through” about 1,075 CRU emails to identify those sent by Mann, sent or copied to him, or which discussed him. Among these they found 377 connected to him in some way, focusing on 47 they deemed “relevant”. They also reviewed a variety of Op-Ed columns, blogs, newspaper articles and scientific reports, and requested that Mann produce all emails in his possession related to AR4. These were obviously intended to include all that Jones suggested he delete. In other words, he was asked to furnish any evidence against himself under an honor system.

Two outside sources were asked to lend opinions, Dr. Gerald North, a professor at Texas A&M and first author of the NAS 2006 report regarding Mann’s research, and Dr. Donald Kennedy, a professor at Stanford and former editor of Science Magazine. Both were Mann’s friends, and both defended him.

In conclusion, the Committee found “no substance” to the first three allegations, and that there was “no basis for further examination” of those three.  For example, they determined that the “trick” referred to in Phil Jones’s November 16, 1999 email was nothing more than “a statistical method used to bring together two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field”.

Regarding the fourth allegation (deviation from accepted academic practices), the Committee conducted additional interviews, including three with scientists not affiliated with PSU:   Dr. William Curry, a senior scientist with the Geology and Geophysics Department, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution; Dr. Jerry McManus, a professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Columbia University; and Dr. Richard Lindzen,  a professor in  the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

When Lindzen was informed during the interview that the first three allegations had already been dismissed at the inquiry stage, his response, as quoted in the Committee’s report, was: “It’s thoroughly amazing. I mean these are issues that he explicitly stated in the emails. I’m wondering what is going on?”

Dr. Lindzen’s bewilderment is understandable.  Concerning the Committee’s conclusion regarding the first allegation (suppressing or falsifying data) — characterizing the “trick” to “hide the decline” as legitimate application of a conventional statistical methodology, ignored or misconstrued salient facts. While Mann’s own research methodology and results have indeed been challenged as fatally flawed, the actual trick should be examined within a broader context.

First, there is a widespread misconception that the reference to a decline refers to concealing an observed fall in global temperatures since a peak in 1998, the warmest year for some time. Instead, it really has to do with graphic trickery suggesting that man-made CO2 emissions over the past 40 years have produced a nearly vertical temperature escalation.

A 1,000-year-long graph was cobbled together using various proxy data derived from ice cores, tree rings and written records of growing season dates up until 1961, where it then applied surface ground station temperature data. Why change in 1961? Well that’s when tree ring proxy data calculations by CRU’s Keith Briffa began going the other way in a steady decline. After presenting these unwelcome results to Mann and others, he was put under pressure to recalculate them. Briffa did, and the decline became even greater.

This presented what Mann referred to as a “conundrum.” Emails reveal that the late 20th century decline indicated by Briffa would be perceived by IPCC as “diluting the message”, was a “problem”, and posed a “potential distraction/detraction.” Mann went on to say that the warming skeptics would have a “field day” if Briffa’s declining temperature reconstruction was shown, and that he would “hate to be the one” to give them “fodder.” So one aspect of Mike’s “trick” was reportedly to show all of the proxy and surface measurement chartings in different colors on a single graph, but simply cut off Briffa’s in a spaghetti clutter of lines at the 1961 date.

Regarding the second allegation, determining if Mann had directly or indirectly deleted or destroyed emails or other information, the findings were at least very lenient. When Phil Jones asked Mann to delete email records being sought under the UK’s Freedom of Information Act and get a colleague, Eugene Wahl, to do the same, he replied “I’ll contact Gene about this ASAP”.  And while PSU investigators never chose to interview Wahl, he later testified to a federal inspector general that he did receive Mann’s message and complied. Accordingly, it would appear that Mann was at least “indirectly” involved in deleting information when he passed along those instructions. And since there are no records to prove otherwise, everyone is asked to take Mann’s word that he didn’t do the same.

The findings have set off a new wave of criticism, accusing the university and its panel of failing to interview key people (such as Jones), neglecting to conduct more than a cursory review of allegations, and structuring the inquiry so that the outcome — exoneration — was a foregone conclusion. In February 2010 Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), the ranking Republican on the House Investigations Committee, charged that Penn State failed to settle all of the charges regarding Mann’s work and demanded that all of his current research grant funding be frozen. That would include a $541,184 National Science Foundation stimulus grant to study climate change.

In May 2011, a Prince William County judge ordered the University of Virginia to release 9,000 pages of Mann’s documents that may shed new light on his ClimateGate exchanges while working there. This action was in response to a FOIA request from Delegate Bob Marshall and the American Tradition Institute (ATI) under Virginia law. The state-funded university had previously provided about 20% of the petitioned amount and has resisted releasing more, including documents previously requested by Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli under the state’s Fraud Against Taxpayers Act. Although this matter is on appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court, UVA has finally agreed to produce all documents not protected from disclosure by August 22.

So is it true, as Michael Mann claims, that he has been exonerated of all charges in these matters? Possibly not—the final jury is still out.


Post Your Comment

Please or sign up to comment.


  • drtee drtee 3 years ago

    Larry Bell’s commentaries are yet another reason why I have stopped reading Forbes. Three different major scientific organizations have vetted the stolen emails and found nothing illegal or unethical in their content. Only a true paranoid would think that these organizations are corrupt enough to fabricate group lies about this matter. Remember, there are academics in these groups and no one on earth is harsher and more vindictive than academics toward colleagues who lie or plagiarize in their work. Do a google news search on that if you do not believe me. They ostracize colleagues who are caught lying. But Larry believe that the groups are corrup and therefore we have to conclude that Larry is p… If the Forbes editors and owner(s) feel that paranoid opeds are appropriate and useful, why should anyone expect the rag’s financial analyses to exhibit necessary objectivity?

  • scottmandia scottmandia 3 years ago

    At least Larry Bell is green with this post.

    Most people just throw out their garbage but Larry Bell recycles it.

  • William Pentland William Pentland, Contributor 3 years ago

    “Three different major scientific organizations have vetted the stolen emails and found nothing illegal or unethical in their content.”

    Nothing “unethical”? Are you sure about that?

  • Mr. Pentaland,

    Yes, that is correct.



  • Pr. Bell,

    This is old news. Even if one were to accept the notion that the purloined emails actually indicated some “unethical” activities, it would hardly matter in the bigger picture. The Theory of Anthropogenic Climatic Change is well established and nearly universally accepted among scientists. The alleged misdeeds of a few individuals, even if they had been true, would not turn the tide of scientific consensus. However there were no misdeeds, as the linked papers above make clear.

  • William Pentland William Pentland, Contributor 3 years ago

    Why is this garbage?

    I support a strong policy response to climate change. In addition, I believe the glib attitude you’ve expressed towards the East Anglia emails is a greater threat to securing political support for carbon cuts than Larry Bell will ever be.

  • William Pentland William Pentland, Contributor 3 years ago

    Thanks, David. Do you interpret those reports as wholesale exonerations? I do not.

    I don’t think the IPCC interpreted the East Anglia incident as a minor infraction, which is why they asked the Inter-Academy Council to review IPCC procedures. Notably, the Inter-Academy found ample room for improvement.

    On a related note, it bears mentioning that scientists are not saints and are no less prone to cook the books than anyone else.


  • jimbo2 jimbo2 3 years ago

    This is absolutely incorrect. AGW theory is not “well established” nor “nearly universally accepted” and is based almost entirely on computerized climatic models that have proven worthless from a predictive standpoint. The AGW proponents’ inability to substantiate their predictions with empirical evidence is the primary reason that AGW has lost so much scientific credibility over the last several years. As for unethical activities – actively conspiring to suppress dissenting scientific research and opinions, willfully misrepresenting and withholding data and obstructing FOI requests all qualify as academically and scientifically unethical.

  • economart economart 3 years ago

    Great job, Mr. Bell. I can’t wait for part 2 and August 22.


  • drtee drtee 3 years ago

    I came back to see responses. Imagine a person tried for a crime, not once, but three times, and found to be innocent each time. As a practical matter, isn’t time to move on? Or should there be another trial?
    But the deeper issue is eloquently expressed below by daviddelosangeles. It is that this is irrelevant to the bigger picture.
    Incidentally, William, I respect you as an essayist–very insightful person. But wrong on this issue.

  • The AGW proponents on here are almost laughable in the degree to which their head is in the sand. There is prima facia evidence that there was unethical behavior going on here. It is as simple as that. Science and Reason are at stake if this sort of thing goes unpunished.

    To me, frauds like those who ran the CRU are the scientific equivalent of the Enron crowd- they are just as greedy, and just as willing to engage in corrupt and unethical practices to make a buck. They hide and manipulate data to create the results that they know the funders of their grants want to see.

    For what it’s worth, this isn’t isolated to climate change research- the same occurs in pharaceutical research on a regular basis. As a result, the only research you can really trust these days is that which is predictive in the real world (AGW proponent data has a very poor track record here).

    If I find that the suggestions offered by researchers don’t have the effect which they claimed, I should throw out their research, and often throw them out as a credible researcher. I do this with financial analysts, climate analysts, nuclear disaster analysts (still waiting for the fukushima mushroom cloud), fiscal policy analysts (the stimulus kept unemployment under 8%, right?), military analysts- all of them!

  • Let me drive this home- I’ve just read Mr. Bell’s Forbes profile. Let’s say I had a design (we’ll call it design A) for a sustainable base I was going to put into orbit around Mars, and Mr. Bell (a space architecture expert, apparently) told me it would not work for some reason, that it would not make the flight to Mars and would collapse within 3 weeks in orbit. Instead, he tries to sell me his design (design B).

    Let’s say I go with Design A anyway, and it works marvelously. A year later, my team is still living happily orbiting Mars, and Bell tells me that my orbiter is is going to crash and burn and so I should pay him to send up one of his orbiters to save my crew. Meanwhile, my design crew says that the orbiter is performing well and is not in danger. Should I listen to Bell?

  • Mr. Pentland,

    Within the context of this blog I certainly do view these an exoneration. Pr. Bell was attempting to use these events are an impeachment of the science of ACC in general. None of the infractions in anyway undermines the science of ACC. While they may not reflect very well on the individuals in question, they have no impact on the science.

  • Hello jimbo2,


    The American Association for the Advancement of Science wrote in 2006:”The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society….The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.”



    The American Meteorological Society wrote:


    That is as close to a consensus as is likely to ever happen.

  • oriorda oriorda 3 years ago


    It’s very depressing to read comments such as the above. Fully a decade after the fatuous claim that ‘manmade global warming is accepted by the vast majority of scientists’ was shown to be a tissue of lies, the claim continues to be trotted out. It’s like something from the Night of the Living Dead in that nothing one can do, no evidence one can offer to show how the claim was never anything more than a self-serving invention, no amount of defections from the global warming crowd by those who eventually saw the truth, nothing at all, in fact, can stop this ridiculous statement from appearing time after time. As I say, it is most depressing to those of us who trust in the power of evidence.

    And all this despite countless explanations that science simply does not work by consensus or numbers. The only thing that matters is unadulterated data, rigorously treated according to the established laws of science and the correct application of mathematical methodology. If just a single scientist does these things and derives an explanation that cannot be disproven and is repeatable, then he is right and everyone else is wrong. It’s that simple. One thinks of Galileo in a consensus of one at the time, yet he was right and every other scientist and layperson who believed the sun went round the Earth was wrong.

    The writer then compounds his grievous error by saying that there was nothing at all wrong in supposedly reputable scientists cooking up their own data when direct observation failed to comply with their requirements, nothing at all wrong when they deleted evidence from the record that disproved their fanciful notions than manmade global warming is real and serious, nothing at all wrong in their conspiring to suppress and marginalize proper scientists whose evidence and data inconveniently contradicted their precious grant-attracting positions and nothing wrong in their dangerous (but again, self-serving) claims that computer modeling trumps real science, hard data and rigorous statistical methodology.

  • oriorda oriorda 3 years ago

    I think you need to study what actually happened with each of those bodies before you can safely conclude they reached their positions based on science. Professor Seitz said about The National Academy of Science position that he had never in his long career ever experienced such a distortion of the scientific process as that which occurred within the Academy he led with distinction and which he loved.

    The evidence is simply not present that any abnormal temperature excursions have been occurring. When you remove data corruption and data mishandling, and subject what is left to rigorous science the evidence simply does not exist. Read Professor Wegman’s report to Congress on the matter for an independent assessment of this.

    Further, the notion that even if unusual temperature excursions have been occurring the cause can be tied to mankind’s production of CO2 is a notion too far, by far. There is no scientific theory that accords with the laws of science that would allow such a cause and effect. In fact, so destroyed is the credibility of this idea that the global warming people have come up with another idea, namely that what they now admit is a very small warming effect from CO2 is actually amplified by an increase in water vapour, which in turn heats the atmosphere further and so on to oblivion. This amplification (or forcing as it is called) is ALWAYS present in ALL their climate models yet cannot be supported by any direct evidence. It is, in fact, a fiction required to sustain their position. Such is the world of mirrors in which we live today.

  • Hello djvanderhoeven,

    The scientist who first demonstrated that the average surface temperature of the earth was entirely controlled by the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was Svante August Arrhenius, a giant in the field of chemistry. It is difficult over state the stature of Dr. Arrhenius, his contributions to the field of chemistry are numerous and enormous. No one can study chemistry without learning about the Arrhenius equation or Arrhenius acids and bases. He founded the fields of Physical Chemistry and Atmospheric Chemistry. He was one of the first recipients of the Nobel Prize for Chemistry.

    In 1896 Dr. Arrhenius published a paper entitled:”On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground” (Philosophical Magazine 41, 237-276 – you can read the entire paper here http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf). He showed that for every two fold increase in carbon dioxide (or carbonic acid as it was called at the time) the average temperature of surface of the earth would increase by about 4-5 oC (which is now called “Climate Sensitivity”). A few years later he published a book where in he suggested that if enough coal were burned the earth’s temperature should rise. His estimate was a bit high, current research would indicate that the Climate Sensitivity is in the 1 – 3 oC / two fold increase range.

    Since then, then the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased and the temperature has increase, at a rate somewhat less than Pr. Arrhenius predicted but not by much. What is truly impressive about his work was that he did not have any of the theoretical or experimental tools available to the modern scientist. Today, scientists would use Planck’s law to calculate the intensity of the IR radiation given off by Earth and use laboratory measurements to calculate how much of that IR radiation would be absorbed by the CO2 in the atmosphere.

    However, in 1896, Max Planck had yet to publish his law and Anders ÅngstrÖm had not yet published the first laboratory measurements of the absorption spectrum of CO2. Arrhenius had to use the Boltzmann-Stefan law to approximate the amount of energy given off by the sun-warmed Earth. Furthermore, the only way he could estimate the ability of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere to absorb this energy was from Samuel Pierpont Langley’s work with light reflected from the moon to Earth.

    Given the poor tools available to Arrhenius, his work and prediction in regard to global warming are simply astounding. Today we have ample evidence that CO2 concentrations have risen thanks to the scientists as NASA and NOAA…


    but Dr. Arrhenius did not have access to this data, indeed the observatory at Mauna Loa did not start collecting CO2 data until 1959, almost 40 years after his death. He hand to make do with the relatively crude and primitive calculations of Pr. Langley of how much CO2 was in the atmosphere at different point of the earth.

    There is also and that the mean global surface temperature is rising thanks to a variety of experimental techniques unavailable in the late 19th century. However the trend is unmistakable…


    Dr. Arrhenius predict over 100 years ago that if human being burned enough fossil fuel and released enough carbon dioxide, the earth’s mean surface temperature would rise, and in pretty much fashion that he said it would.

    I for one think that if one reads his original work from 1896, the case he makes is extremely difficult to rebut. That current research results supports his conclusions make his case even stronger.

  • Hello oriorda,

    No scientific theory is ever going to have the support of every single person. There are people who still believe that evolution is wrong. Pr. Seitz was of course a solid state physicist and not a climate scientist but be that as it may let us assume that he is correct, what about all of the other organizations, they all simultaneously made exactly the same error? I would argue that given the inherent conservativeness of these organizations, they would not all come to the same conclusion at about the same time unless the science was indeed overwhelming.

    Pr. Wegman is mathematician, a professor of mathematical statistics, he is also not a climate scientist. Moreover, his work does nothing to overturn the fundamental physics or chemistry of the ACC. I might add, his work has been rejected because of charges of plagiarism and sloppy peer review.


    There is ample evidence of both increases in carbon dioxide content and rising temperatures..



    Pr. Arrhenius was one of the most important scientists in history. He predicted that the average temperature of the earth would increase if the carbon dioxide concentration increased and demonstrated it mathematically. Climate scientists have since demonstrated he was right.

    That is science at its best.

  • Hello oriorda,

    All of the following organizations support the ACC: IPCC, NOAA, NASA, The National Geographic Society, the National Academy of Science, the American Chemical Society, American Institute of Physics, American Geophysical Union, International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, American Meteorological Society, International Union for Quaternary Research, American Institute of Biological Sciences, American Public Health Association (the list actually longer).

    Name one similar organization that opposes it.

  • economart economart 3 years ago

    Hello David,

    Still making one insipid claim after another. You learn nothing here and confirm it every time.


  • oriorda oriorda 3 years ago

    I appreciate that it might appear such an imposing list of bodies must indicate that the theory of manmade global warming must be right. But the point is this: assigned or acquired authority and numbers do not trump observation and science. Ben Franklin encapsulated the point I want to make in saying the greatest monarch on the proudest throne must sit upon his own arse. You must examine the data for yourself and when you do, you will see there is no basis for the theory. It doesn’t matter what Bono says, or an NOAA spokesman, if the data doesn’t demonstrate a problem, there is no problem. This is the core problem scientists who oppose the global warming position have: we cannot find the data and we cannot follow any explanation of the theory that accords with our knowledge of the laws of science. It’s that simple.

    We can see the numbers have been cooked, the analysis is not rigorous, the models (which the entire theory depends on since there are no observations to support their claims) are simply garbage: when a climate model can’t even predict next month’s weather better than the farmer down the road, then why would you imagine they can do so for 50 years hence? The models are ALL fictions designed to produce the result that there is a problem (all, for example, make the assumption that every heating of the atmosphere produces more water vapour uptake with the Earth making no response, which in turn leads to greater heating and even more water uptake. When you remove this assumption all models fail to produce the required result. However, there is all the evidence you could ever want that the Earth DOES make a response and that is to return the system to stability.)

    The bodies you refer to are not homogenous in their support. A few in NASA, for example, are led by the scandalous James Hansen and strongly argue for global warming, but many in NASA hold opposing views because they see the daily evidence from the satellites.

    The IPCC is thoroughly discredited and you simply can’t trust them on anything (there are hundreds of papers illustrating the massive distortions in the IPCC’s sorrowful record on this issue: after all, none of them would have a job if we all understood the fiction they peddle).

    The various institutes you mention have seen strong opposition from within their ranks to have their society’s politicised positions reversed. When members see their own Society say ‘Arctic ice is disappearing faster than ever’ when the actual data shows this to be untrue, you can perhaps understand why they despair. When groups say global warming is causing malarial vectors to spread northwards, when the data clearly shows these vectors have lived as far north as the Arctic circle for as long as we can tell, you can understand why members of the groups wonder who is speaking for whom.

    I won’t list the huge number of scientists and scientific institutions that oppose the global warming argument because, as I said earlier, authority does not mean one is right. Observation, accurate data (all the data) and rigorous analysis show which theory is right.

  • oriorda oriorda 3 years ago

    Understanding the absorbtion characteristics of the CO2 molecule show it to be pretty nearly ‘full’ at the current level of CO2. Since absorbtion follows a logarithmic rule it is trivial to see that in order for significant warming to occur because of increasing CO2 levels, such levels have to rise enormously. I’ll provide one example. At a level of 280ppm, fully 50% of the heating effect is achieved by the first 20ppm. It takes the other 260ppm to achieve the remaining 50%. This is the reason the records from the past show levels at 4000ppm yet we managed to survive and indeed are still here and thriving. CO2 is NOT a problem.

    We had to bang away with this very basic point for nearly a decade before the global warming people accepted their position was no longer tenable. But they then brought in another argument: namely, small rises in CO2 product small increases in temperature which in turn increases the uptake of water vapour. Since we all agree water vapour is by far the dominant warming contributor in the atmosphere (a point we have been making since the beginning of this debate) then the global warming people have been very canny in using this to preserve their idea that CO2 is ‘bad’ by switching its role from prime mover to ‘accelerator or lever’. You see, they can’t let go of the CO2 angle because that’s the key to their agenda. For Gore and his cronies CO2 means mega millions in ‘cap and trade’ and ‘carbon trading’, for the environmental movement CO2 means de-industrializing society, for the alternative energy people CO2 means huge subsidies for their expensive energy, for politicos CO2 means implementing more controls over what people do, for industrialists it means denying the Third World cheap energy and foisting on them expensive alternatives that can only be made in the First World … CO2 for all these groups is the goose that lays the golden eggs. And for hundreds of thousands of researchers it means grants and food on the table. No wonder they cling onto it.

  • Hello,

    You wrote:”if the data doesn’t demonstrate a problem, there is no problem.”

    However the data *does* demonstrate a problem.


    You wrote:”We can see the numbers have been cooked…”

    How do you know that? Do you have any evidence that the “numbers have been cooked” by NASA or NOAA?

    You wrote:”when a climate model can’t even predict next month’s weather better than the farmer down the road, then why would you imagine they can do so for 50 years hence?”

    You do not seem to know the difference between weather and climate. Climate models do not predict next months weather.

    I would note that the “Hot House Theory” of global climate was first advanced by Joseph Fourrier in 1826 and John Tyndall first showed that the major chemical components of the Hot House Theory were carbon dioxide, ozone, and water vapor in the 1870′s and Svente Arrhenius demonstrated the quantitative effect of both carbon dioxide and water vapor upon the mean global temperature in 1896.

    So the vast majority of climate scientists, according to your theory, are engaged in a giant world-wide conspiracy almost 200 years old to advance a non-scientific theory for nefarious ends? Is not this the substance of a Dan Brown novel?

  • Hello oriorda,

    The simple fact of the matter is that in 1896 Pr. Arrhenius showed mathematically that for each two-fold increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere the the mean temperature of the earth’s surface would increase by a few degrees. Since then, the amount carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased and the mean temperature of the earth’s surface has increased. The hypothesis of ACC is supported by the experimental evidence.

    This theory was developed before Al Gore’s father was even born.

  • economart economart 3 years ago

    Does anyone want to see how the perceived threat of global warming causes floods:


    There may also be a question of power production. Its hard for the Corps to generate hydro power when the dams are empty. Hunting and fishing interests may have also played a part.

    How many more dams, built initially to regulate water levels and prevent flooding, operated by the Corps consider flooding a secondary matter?


  • whrosen whrosen 3 years ago

    Name one similar organization, including those, that is not compromised by the need to go along with Washington’s prevailing agenda in earth sciences’ funding.

    If you can find one, poll the members and ask if unethical activism has taken root in their professional organization.

    And if there is anyone left, ask them if they relied on Michael Mann and cohorts when they formed their opinions, and if they have revised them.

  • gwkimball gwkimball 3 years ago

    Utterly wrong that this ‘theory’ is established (it is not even close) – or that there is universal agreement (there absolutely is not).
    daviddelosangeles has been posting this kind of junk repeatedly, and it is propaganda. It is simply untrue, and at this point I have to question his ethics for repeating it, even if he personally ardently believes in GW.

    I’m quite knowledgeable in the scientific areas that are relevant to the core claims of GW, and I have not seen any compelling argument that it is even close to being true. It has snowballed because of the emotional appeal to the green crowd – confirming their worst prejudices about humans and offering the prospect of vast global power to dictate to humans.

    “The urge to save mankind is always a mask for the urge to dominate it” –H.L. Mencken

  • gwkimball gwkimball 3 years ago

    Mr. Pentland, please go with an open mind and read what the skeptics have to say about AGW. The last thing the world needs is journalists continuing to salute the GW promoters every word. Even if you are so naive and don’t have the background that you believe in GW, there has been plenty of unsavory behavior by its promoters (Al Gore in particular). That is especially visible in the whitewash of what was very obviously improper behavior in ‘climategate’, and should be exposed by the press regardless of the scientific issue. I do think the public is not as gullible as the press and GW has quite deservedly fallen into disrepute.

  • gwkimball gwkimball 3 years ago

    daviddelosangeles is a retired chemist with nothing better to do, apparently, than promote AGW on Forbes. Unfortunately he does not understand the physics behind AGW, no matter how many times he bows at the altar of Arrhenius. (Just how did Arrhenius calculate ocean absorption, bioremediation, H2O vapor uncertainty, atmospheric dust and reflectance, global convection, phytoplankton absorption, ice encasement and and and ? Those things all affect CO2 concentration).

    One of the most favored fallacies of the AGW crowd is to cite that there is near universal agreement that the climate has warmed by 0.6C over the last century. Leaving aside any issues of consensus and how weak the evidence is — even if that is true, it is of no significance whatever. The historical temperatures cited have not tracked the consumption of fossil fuels. The earth has heated and cooled by larger amounts and has done so for millennia, quite visible in both the natural record, anthropological evidence and in historical records. So the grand statement of agreement of warming, even if true, is very misleading, usually deliberately so. It would not be ominous, unusual or even significant – if we even knew it were true.

    To establish a link between warming and human fuel consumption, one must first be able to calculate with an extremely high degree of accuracy what the climate would do in the absence of CO2 from fuel. It is utterly laughable to say that the computer climate models are capable of doing this – they do not predict past climate correctly. They are so far off they are not even wrong.
    There has been plenty of shady ‘spoofing’ (fabricating inputs to get some desired output) of climate models, which appears to be Michael Mann’s real contribution to climate ‘science’, and which was done extensively to fake his original ‘hockey stick’ graph that got the attention of Congress. The same people who promoted it, the exact same people in the seventies were in front of Congress warning about the catastrophes that would result from further global cooling (there have been two cooling and two warming fads in the last century).

    Ulimately, AGW isn’t a scientific issue but a cultural (more accurately, religious) one. People believe it because they want to – an emotional prejudice that has always been at the center of green-ism. It makes man the progenitor of evil on earth (the garden), courting damnation (catastrophic destruction of the environment) by his continued transgressions – driving SUV’s, building houses, mining, drilling for oil, making electricity… And if one thinks this through, one will find the basic tenets common to western religions. Science is perhaps the most important product of the enlightenment; but the public understanding of science is still medieval. I have personally given up discussing it or writing about it (this being an exception because I’m so tired of davidde’s screeds of blather) because when people want to believe something, no rational rebuttal will make any difference. And the rancor and viciousness of the AGW promoters then has to be endured.