Posts Tagged ‘Mann’

Climategate 2.0: What’s in the encrypted 200,000 emails?

December 6, 2011

While I have been travelling over the last week, the IPCC Durban circus has been performing to dwindling audiences.

The Climategate 1 and 2 emails that have been released so far (about 1,000 + 5,000) are focused mainly on a 3-way nexus between a group of rather mediocre scientists, a few willing (and gullible) reporters and some of the bureaucrats/politicians who have seized on the advantages of fear-mongering.

The mediocrity of the so-called climate scientists is palpable. Michael Mann leaves out data whwnever he feels like it, Phil Jones can’t fathom the intricacies of an Excel table,  Tom Wigley (appropriate name) tries to get the PhD’s of his opponents retracted, etc …….. . And all for “The Cause”.

We have seen the blatant lobbying activities of Harrabin and Revkin undermine the reputation of the BBC and the New York Times. At least George Monbiot does not pretend to be anything other than a lobbyist. Harrabin’s pompous defence of his blinkered view is particularly nauseating.

Now we find that the IPCC itself was not averse to falsifying data when it felt the message needed strengthening.

The Global warming fraternity have been busy defending themselves, denying that what they have been engaged in has been bad science or bad journalism. But the politicians and bureaucrats have escaped scrutiny — at least so far.

But there are 200,000 further emails waiting to be un-encrypted by the release of a decrypting phrase  (the emails themselves have already been released). And some bureaucrats, some IPCC functionaries, some carbon trading entrepreneurs  and some amoral, fear-mongering politicians have to wait their turn.

But they will probably not have to wait very long!!!!

Michael Mann and Marc Hauser

September 4, 2010

I am not sure if the cases of Marc Hauser(Harvard)  of Hausergate and Michael E Mann (Penn State and the University of Virginia) of Climategate are strictly comparable since the two gates follow different routes in the faking of science.

Climategate was more of a group activity by a small clique with a great deal of group-think, whereas Hausergate was much more solitary.  The peer-review process was perverted to an end by the Climategate gang but this is not apparent with Hauser. Mann’s “hockeystick” was more a “fudging” of some data, “cherry-picking” and massaging statistical method to support a pre-determined result while Hauser seems to have just plain faked the data he wanted to support his personal theories. The pursuit of tenure and publications and fame (and some associated fortune) are probably common to both cases.

Climategate however affected policy and had a clear political agenda. Many involved around Climategate and the IPCC have murky ties to the multi-billion carbon scam. In Hausergate the political agenda, if any, is rather soft.

But what is noteworthy is the increase in the number of such comparisons being made and that such comparisons seem appropriate:

  1. If Michael Mann Had Worked At Harvard Instead Of Uva, Would He Now Be Working At Burger King Or Mcdonald’s?
  2. David Sheffield ’11: Scientific misconduct
  3. Monkey business?
  4. “HAUSERGATE” IS GOOD FOR SCIENCE
  5. Two Different Approaches to Academic Monkey Business

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 225 other followers