Michael Mann in his own words on the stolen CRU emails

Kernel Sanders · 11-26-09, 04:10 PM

Source [DeSmog Blog | Michael Mann in his own words on the stolen CRU emails]

Quote:

With all the wild accusations flying around over the illegally obtained email correspondence from the University of East Climate Research Unit, I thought I would ask one of the scientists in the middle of the issue to provide some context.

Penn State University climate scientist, Dr. Michael Mann, whose name appears in some of the stolen emails, provided me with a run-down of the emails that involve him. His responses provide some much needed context and give you an idea of just how wildly some people have blown this story out of proportion.

What follows is quotes taken directly from the stolen emails, followed by Dr. Mann's response:

The responses are rather full so I don't want to quote them on this page. Just follow the link. It looks like just what I've been hearing - completely mundane private communication about very specific things. He did not respond to the "delete the emails" message (he didn't write that one), which remains the only likely revelation of wrongdoing. He did not delete said emails, but the request to do so in response to a FOIA request is legally dubious (I don't know enough about the UK's FOIA to know if a mere request is illegal)

MrVicchio · 11-26-09, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kernel Sanders

Source [DeSmog Blog | Michael Mann in his own words on the stolen CRU emails]

The responses are rather full so I don't want to quote them on this page. Just follow the link. It looks like just what I've been hearing - completely mundane private communication about very specific things. He did not respond to the "delete the emails" message (he didn't write that one), which remains the only likely revelation of wrongdoing. He did not delete said emails, but the request to do so in response to a FOIA request is legally dubious (I don't know enough about the UK's FOIA to know if a mere request is illegal)

You went to a pro-warmer blog, spinning the issue for damage control, and they quote one of the biggest liars in the AGW hoax, Mr. Mann himself. The Hockey stick idiot.

Do you know, in one of those IPCC studies, I'm eating pumpkin pie, so I'll let you go refute this, cause I know you cannot, they used "Tree Rings" from some Siberian tree to prove all this warming.

Two problems.

1. They cherry picked through the trees and used only three.

2. The living ancestors of said trees, do not show the "tree ring" evidence that the old dead ones used are supposed to be showing.

The upshot of all that is, it shows what utter garbage Mr. Mann's work is.

Yet you genuflect at his every word, how.. sad.

MrVicchio · 11-26-09, 11:52 PM

How to Forge a Consensus - WSJ.com

Just for you and MG to read, I'm sure you'll ignore it, as it refutes Mr. Mann and asks tough questions, but I thought I'd bring it to your attention.

Kernel Sanders · 11-26-09, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrVicchio

You went to a pro-warmer blog, spinning the issue for damage control, and they quote one of the biggest liars in the AGW hoax, Mr. Mann himself. The Hockey stick idiot.

Did you even click the link? Mann either wrote or received several of the emails that have been widely circulated. If you don't want him to explain the context, who do you want them to quote?

Quote:

Do you know, in one of those IPCC studies, I'm eating pumpkin pie, so I'll let you go refute this, cause I know you cannot, they used "Tree Rings" from some Siberian tree to prove all this warming.

Two problems.

1. They cherry picked through the trees and used only three.

2. The living ancestors of said trees, do not show the "tree ring" evidence that the old dead ones used are supposed to be showing.

The upshot of all that is, it shows what utter garbage Mr. Mann's work is.

Yet you genuflect at his every word, how.. sad.

To which study are you referring?

MrVicchio · 11-27-09, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kernel Sanders

Did you even click the link? Mann either wrote or received several of the emails that have been widely circulated. If you don't want him to explain the context, who do you want them to quote?

To which study are you referring?

Yes, I did read it, but I had read the WSJ article EARLIER.

Let me finish my pie damn you.

Kernel Sanders · 11-27-09, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrVicchio

How to Forge a Consensus - WSJ.com

Just for you and MG to read, I'm sure you'll ignore it, as it refutes Mr. Mann and asks tough questions, but I thought I'd bring it to your attention.

Did you even read the link I posted? Mann responds to the email that that opinion piece is focusing on.

Kernel Sanders · 11-27-09, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrVicchio

Yes, I did read it, but I had read the WSJ article EARLIER.

Let me finish my pie damn you.

NP - and disregard the above

Nothing should come between a man and pumpkin pie on Thanksgiving

MrVicchio · 11-27-09, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kernel Sanders

Did you even click the link? Mann either wrote or received several of the emails that have been widely circulated. If you don't want him to explain the context, who do you want them to quote?

To which study are you referring?

Quote:

Except that the graph – devised in 1998 by a US climatologist called Dr Michael Mann - is based on a huge lie, as Sceptics have been saying for quite some time. The first thing they noticed is that this “Hockey Stick” (based on tree ring data, a “proxy” used to reconstruct how climate has changed over the centuries) is that it seemed completely to omit the Medieval Warming Period.
According to Mann’s graph, the hottest period in modern history was NOT the generally balmy era between 900 and 1300 but the late 20th century. This led many sceptics, among them a Canadian mathematician named Steve McIntyre to smell a rat. He tried to replicate Mann’s tree ring work but was stymied by lack of data: ie the global community of climate-fear-promotion scientists closed ranks and refused to provide him with any information that might contradict their cause.

The Mann HOCKEY STICK.

Quote:

When McIntyre approached the Met Office and the CRU for more information they refused, claiming implausibly that it would damage Britain’s “international relations” with all the countries that supplied it. Later they went a step further and claimed the data had been mislaid.
And there McIntyre’s efforts to uncover the mystery of the Hockey Stick might have ended, had he not had a stroke of luck, as Chris Horner explains at Planet Gore.
“Years go by. McIntyre is still stymied trying to get access to the original source data so that he can replicate the Mann 1998 conclusion. In 2008 Mann publishes another paper in bolstering his tree ring claim due to all of the controversy surrounding it. A Mann co-author and source of tree ring data (Professor Keith Briffa of the Hadley UK Climate Research Unit) used one of the tree ring data series (Yamal in Russia) in a paper published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in 2008, which has a strict data archiving policy. Thanks to that policy, Steve McIntyre fought and won access to that data just last week.”
When finally McIntyre plotted in a much larger and more representative range of samples than used those used by Briffa – though from exactly the same area – the results he got were startlingly different.
Have a look at the graph at Climate Audit (which broke the story and has been so inundated with hits that its server was almost overwhelmed) and see for yourself.
http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-conte...ogies_rev2.gif
The scary red line shooting upwards is the one Al Gore, Michael Mann, Keith Briffa and their climate-fear-promotion chums would like you to believe in. The black one, heading downwards, represents scientific reality.

How the global warming industry is based on one MASSIVE lie – Telegraph Blogs

Now, Mr. Mann has been exposed as a liar, why do you trust him about the emails?? I mean that with all sincerity. His hockey stick graph is utter bull****.

MrVicchio · 11-27-09, 12:23 AM

Power Line - The Alarmists Do "Science": A Case Study

Also a great breakdown for you, if you really want to see why I feel this way. Mr. Mann really is a target in my mind.

Kernel Sanders · 11-27-09, 11:49 AM

McIntyre's response to Mann 1998 was important, and led to several changes in paleoclimateology models. Subsequent reseach and a congressional investigation, however, found that while the analysis contained some weaknesses, and that Mann's stronger claims could not be supported, his overall reconstruction was solid. If you'd like to discuss further, please start a thread on the subject. This thread is about Mann's responses to the CRU emails and I'd rather not derail it into a debate over the hockey stick graph or more recent adjustments to it.

11-26-09, 11:52 PM	#3
MrVicchio Navy Veteran Join Date: Aug 2007 Last Seen: Today 08:15 AM Location: San Antonio Texas Posts: 8,035 Thanks: 976 Thanked 2,576 Times in 1,475 Posts Lean: Very Conservative Gender: Total Awards: 1	Re: Michael Mann in his own words on the stolen CRU emails How to Forge a Consensus - WSJ.com Just for you and MG to read, I'm sure you'll ignore it, as it refutes Mr. Mann and asks tough questions, but I thought I'd bring it to your attention.
	__________________ Both of our PC's died. I am using a 2004-5 era Mac. It's SLOW. So if you see a TYPO in my posts, forgive it. Cause this stupid POS sux.

11-27-09, 12:23 AM	#9
MrVicchio Navy Veteran Join Date: Aug 2007 Last Seen: Today 08:15 AM Location: San Antonio Texas Posts: 8,035 Thanks: 976 Thanked 2,576 Times in 1,475 Posts Lean: Very Conservative Gender: Total Awards: 1	Re: Michael Mann in his own words on the stolen CRU emails Power Line - The Alarmists Do "Science": A Case Study Also a great breakdown for you, if you really want to see why I feel this way. Mr. Mann really is a target in my mind.
	__________________ Both of our PC's died. I am using a 2004-5 era Mac. It's SLOW. So if you see a TYPO in my posts, forgive it. Cause this stupid POS sux.

11-27-09, 11:49 AM	#10
Kernel Sanders Norville Rogers Join Date: Jul 2008 Last Seen: Yesterday 08:49 PM Location: Pittsburgh, PA Posts: 3,380 Thanks: 2,160 Thanked 1,717 Times in 905 Posts Gender:	Re: Michael Mann in his own words on the stolen CRU emails McIntyre's response to Mann 1998 was important, and led to several changes in paleoclimateology models. Subsequent reseach and a congressional investigation, however, found that while the analysis contained some weaknesses, and that Mann's stronger claims could not be supported, his overall reconstruction was solid. If you'd like to discuss further, please start a thread on the subject. This thread is about Mann's responses to the CRU emails and I'd rather not derail it into a debate over the hockey stick graph or more recent adjustments to it.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following User Says Thank You to Kernel Sanders For This Useful Post:
Middleground

The Following User Says Thank You to MrVicchio For This Useful Post:
Gill

The Following User Says Thank You to Kernel Sanders For This Useful Post:
MrVicchio