MICHAEL MANN TO SUE OVER HIDE THE DECLINE VIDEO?

Ah, that infamous climate "scientist" from Penn State University, Michael Mann, appears to have a sensitivity problem and his way of dealing with it is ill-advised by Marc Morano who, while appearing on Fox with Megyn Kelly, points out that Mann is more concerned about suing the creators of a parody YouTube video than he is about pleading his case and defending his record.

The result, as Morano and Kelly point out, will unquestionably be more interest in the viral video known as "Hide the Decline". First the Fox interview wit Morano via Hope for America:



Kelly pointed out that the video of Hide the Decline has been pulled as a result of the lawsuit and in some cases it has been. However, I've found this one that still works......for now.

CLIMATEGATE: DISGRACED PROFESSOR CRIES UNCLE

This one is really big. In light of last week's news that Phil Jones, climate scientist at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) who had to step down a few months ago for his prominent role in the scandal, contemplated suicide, he may be going through a real catharsis here. If he truly is having an epiphany, he needs support and not derision.

Did he do wrong? Absolutely, but when a human being puts this amount of pride and intellectual / emotional investment aside and truly humbles himself, it is a victory for that individual to be celebrated. It is liberating, whatever the consequences to himself. I don't know if that's happened with Jones but signs are that he's close to doing so if he considered taking his own life and is making these stunning admissions.

Courtesy of the Daily Mail:

Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

While Jones' admissions were somewhat stunning, they didn't go all the way.

But he denied he had cheated over the data or unfairly influenced the scientific process, and said he still believed recent temperature rises were predominantly man-made.

Asked about whether he lost track of data, Professor Jones said: ‘There is some truth in that. We do have a trail of where the weather stations have come from but it’s probably not as good as it should be.

‘There’s a continual updating of the dataset. Keeping track of everything is difficult. Some countries will do lots of checking on their data then issue improved data, so it can be very difficult. We have improved but we have to improve more.’

Maybe I have a different take on this than most but if any of us were in a similar position, we'd be broken human beings in desperate need of support. Jones needs people around him that are going to help him go all the way through this admission. If he does, he will come out the other side as potentially one of the strongest allies in the fight against this despicable fraud. He's on the brink of admitting the entire truth and confessing the whole thing.

I am not saying that Jones shouldn't be held accountable for his complicity but I am saying it's time to start showing a little mercy and compassion.

Michael Mann on the other hand, still appears to be digging in his heels, displaying the raw arrogance and pride that only serves to anger those of us who know this entire charade is criminal. After all, now that his hockey stick chart has been proven to be completely fraudulent, he comes across as an arrogant boob, denying his hand is the one at the other end of his arm, inside the cookie jar.

'fess up, Mann.

MY OPEN LETTER TO MICHAEL MANN

Michael Mann of climategate fame has issued a rebuttal to Sarah Palin's calling him out on the scandal. Upon reading his column, I decided to send him a letter. I wasn't planning to post it but since Doug Ross did such a good job of making it look better than what I sent, I decided to go ahead and do it.

Be sure to visit DOUG ROSS often:

Mr. Mann,

It takes a lot of gall to try to defend AGW [anthropogenic global warming] after it's been exposed as a complete and total fraud thanks to Climategate. The "Hide the Decline" email is but an ice chip in a glacier of examples -- so focusing on that exclusively is rather inconsequential.

There are other issues like the hockey stick chart (yours, I believe) that have been completely and utterly debunked; the Hadley Center's cherry-picking of data from Russia's meteorological stations; the stonewalling of freedom-of-information requests; the omission of accurate Medieval Warming Period (MWP) temperatures that were significantly warmer than the current period; the suppression and intimidation of opposing viewpoints; ... but I grow tired, should I continue? The whole thing is beyond shameful. If you possessed but a modicum of honesty, you would simply admit your crimes.

Oh -- are you familiar with Archimedes? When ice melts, water levels actually fall. It has to do with displacement and the density of ice versus water. Claiming that sea levels will rise because glaciers melt is either ignorant or fraudulent. Can you pass that along to your buddy-slash-current Science Czar John "Mass Sterilization" Holdren? He's actually been wrong about, well, pretty much everything over the years. Maybe you could help him out.

Mr. Mann, the best thing you could do would be to come clean and seek forgiveness. Such an act would be both humbling and liberating. You should try it. It's an option that's always available. And it's never too late to free yourself.

Would you agree that humility and contrition are noble endeavors?

Regards,

Ben Barrack

HERE is Mann's column.

VIDEO: CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE BIG SCHEME OF THINGS

Much ado has been made about Penn State University's Michael Mann and his "hockey stick" chart that showed a dramatic upswing in global temperatures based on the warm year of 1998, which Mann appears to have exploited in a big way. The chart has been de-bunked yet he continues to arrogantly champion what it indicates.

Ok, let's appease Mr. Mann. Let's assume that his "hockey stick" chart has not been de-bunked, is valid, and will stand the test of time. Now let's put it to an historical test.

Take note of how insignificant Mann's chart is when viewed in the scope of 10's of thousands of years. Not only doesn't it stand up (even if it hadn't been de-bunked) but the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) around the year 1000 still dwarfs it.

A lot of people should be going to jail.



h/t to WUWT

CLIMATEGATE AND CHILDISH SCIENTISTS

Steven F. Hayword's piece in the Weekly Standard is lengthy but extremely compelling. It not only provides insight into the creation of the "Hockey Stick" chart by Michael Mann, but it also gives us a sneak peak into the relationships between the CRU / man-made climate change proponents. The portrait painted of Michael Mann is not very kind. Hayword's analysis leaves one with the Impression that Mann was blinded by something other than science and that people within his circle expressed doubts about his "hockey stick".

Quoting from Hayword:

It has long been thought that over the last thousand years the earth experienced two significant natural climate cycles: the "medieval warm period" (MWP) centered around the year 1000 and the "little ice age" (LIA) from about 1500 to 1850 or so. The first report of the IPCC in 1992 displayed a stylized thousand-year temperature record showing that the MWP was warmer than current global temperatures, but this was mostly conjecture. Yet it was a huge problem for the climate campaigners: If the medieval warm period was as warm as today, as some scientists believe, it would mean that today's temperatures are arguably within the range of normal climate variability, and that we could not yet confirm greenhouse gas emissions as the sole cause of recent increases or rely on computer climate models for predictions of future climate apocalypse. There had long been rumors that leading figures in the climate community believed they needed to make the medieval warm period go away, but until the CRU leak there was no evidence besides hearsay that scientists might be cooking the books.

So what happened between 1992 and 1998? Mann's "hockey stick" chart in 1998 seemed to disregard both the MWP and the LIA. Based on Hayword's article, Mann dug in his heals over the matter and wouldn't even listen to those in his inner circle.

The CRU emails reveal internal doubts about this entire enterprise both before and after the hockey stick made its debut. In a 1996 email to a large number of scientists in the CRU circle, Tom Wigley, a top climatologist working at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, cautioned: "I support the continued collection of such data, but I am disturbed by how some people in the paleo community try to oversell their product." Mann and his colleagues made use of some of the CRU data, but some of the CRU scientists weren't comfortable with the way Mann represented it and also seemed to find Mann more than a bit insufferable.

Be sure to read the ENTIRE ARTICLE as it provides an "inside baseball" look into the culture within this group. It also puts the emails in a very logical and hard-to-argue-with context.

One of the best articles on this scandal I've seen.

VIDEO: MICHAEL MANN OF CLIMATEGATE SPEAKS

Michael Mann, inventer of the faux "hockey stick" chart spoke with accuweather.com and let's just say that if you're looking for contrition, you will be disappointed. The smug and bullish man that appeared to be involved in those countless emails at the CRU comes across as just that in person too. Mann says the emails are taken out of context and that this whole episode is just a "distraction" and "policy-makers, in general are smart enough to recognize that".

Let's see... A discredited and debunked chart that Mann came up with, emails calling for the stonewalling of FOIA requests, ignoring peer review papers that disagreed with the agenda, emails calling the failure to account for global warming a "travesty", and bully tactics aimed at those who dared to question.

This guy is a disgrace.



Here is the ENTIRE ARTICLE.

Oh, and if you think Michael Mann seems to look familiar, this is where you may have seen him before.



h/t to FR

FINALLY! NEW YORK TIMES COVERS CLIMATEGATE

Ah, that MSM continues to be behind the curve. It took 'em a while but it looks like the MSM may actually be starting to relent and is once again being dragged - kicking and screaming - to stories that they should have been covering ahead of those pesky bloggers in pajamas. Some may have a problem with this piece by John Tierney at the NYT based on his giving the benefit of the doubt to Michael Mann, the professor from Penn State responsible for the now debunked "hockey stick" chart that shows skyrocketing temperatures at the end of the 20th century.

However, to Tierney's credit, that part didn't come until much later in his article. The first part of the article consisted of a decently objective critique of the scientists implicated in Climategate and the frantically frustrated attempts of "Harry" to get it to all make sense.

The fact that the deference to Mann didn't occur at the beginning is a major step for the Times. Actually, Tierney linked to the "Hide the Decline" video before appearing to side with Mann's contentions by outwardly and prematurely admitting to taking Mann "at his word" despite what facts seem to indicate. For the record, the "Hide the Decline" video was posted on little old Barrack's blog BEFORE Thanksgiving.

Tierney actually goes beyond the incriminating emails and tackles the Harry_Read_Me files which are expected to shine an even brighter light on this scandal. Harry's efforts are getting increased attention. He gives the appearance of someone tasked with putting a square peg into a round hole without being told to stop.

For example, take a look at the first few paragraphs from Tierney's piece:

If you have not delved into the thousands of e-mail messages and files hacked from the computers of British climate scientists, let me give you the closest thing to an executive summary. It is taken from a file slugged HARRY_READ_ME, which is the log of a computer expert’s long struggle to make sense of a database of historical temperatures. Here is Harry’s summary of the situation:

Aarrggghhh!

That cry, in various spellings, is a motif throughout the log as Harry tries to fight off despair. “OH [EXPLETIVE] THIS!” he writes after struggling to reconcile readings from weather stations around the world. “It’s Sunday evening, I’ve worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I’m hitting yet another problem that’s based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity. ...”

Newspaper writing 101 states that the most powerful words come at the beginning. I know it requires reading between the proverbial lines but based on how Tierney started his article - and continued for some time - it's not far fetched to imagine climate change de-bunkers pumping their fists for several paragraphs.

Another example:

When a journal publishes a skeptic’s paper, the scientists e-mail one another to ignore it. They focus instead on retaliation against the journal and the editor, a project that is breezily added to the agenda of their next meeting: “Another thing to discuss in Nice!”

As the scientists denigrate their critics in the e-mail messages, they seem oblivious to one of the greatest dangers in the climate-change debate: smug groupthink. These researchers, some of the most prominent climate experts in Britain and America, seem so focused on winning the public-relations war that they exaggerate their certitude — and ultimately undermine their own cause.

Again, Tierney seems to get it and is pushing the right buttons. It's refreshing to see this coming from the likes of the New York Times, albeit a bit late.

Be sure to read the WHOLE THING. If you can overlook the apparent attempt by Tierney to soften the blow to Mann, it's actually quite good. Also remember, there are trillions of dollars at stake here. The powers that be definitely don't want to lose the New York Times - I know, hard to believe - but I think it's important to look at how Tierney approached writing this article rather than focusing on what he wrote about Mann several paragraphs in. On the whole, this piece is more damaging to the likes of Al Gore and the Climate change fraud-meisters than it is helpful to the folks at the CRU.

When it comes to the MSM, Climategate is moving at the speed of a glacier but this article in the NYT is equivalent to a sudden shift. Let's take our victories where we can get 'em and not hope for more than what we've come to expect. In my view, Tierney's piece gave us more than we should have expected.

drip, drip drip........that's the sound of the Climate change glacier.

Patience is necessary when wanting something this massive to pick up steam.

h/t to BG

VIDEO: EXCELLENT CLIMATEGATE SONG!

There are still hundreds of emails from the University of East Anglia University Climate Research Unit to sort through in order to get to the bottom of the Climate Change / Global Warming fraud but the most notorious to date - and probably destined to be the signature email of the scandal - involves the "Nature Trick" of Penn State University Earth System Science professor Michael Mann. The intent of the "nature trick" was to "hide the decline".

Hence, the title of the song set to a very familiar melody. Very Catchy.



The email is from Phil Jones, of East Anglia's CRU and just in case you haven't seen it yet, here it is:

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxx, mhughes@xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx,t.osborn@xxx

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone XXXXXX
School of Environmental Sciences Fax XXXXXX
University of East Anglia

The man you see pictured in this video is Dr. Michael Mann. Here is a LINK to his webpage. At the time of this post, his page boasts 28,405 visitors since 2005. Mann's likely not going to have to worry about hiding any declines when it comes to hits on his website.























h/t to HA