Bishop Hill American Spectator on McIntyre
May 18, 2010 Climate: McIntyre The American Spectator has picked up on the Heartland conference's muted reaction to Steve McIntyre's keynote presentation.
...it was an extremely odd audience reaction: McIntyre received a standing ovation upon his introduction, thanks to his dogged research and unrelenting demand for information and accountability, but then his blase' attitude about scientists' behavior -- particularly Mann's -- left most of the audience cold and some even angry. The applause for McIntyre was tepid upon the conclusion of his remarks. I don't think I've ever seen that before.
As Roger Pielke Jnr has explained, the Nature trick doesn't seem to amount to fraud "as it is defined in the academy". I must say, I'm not sure I understand how the academy defines such things, but there are clearly many who would apply real world definitions in these circumstances rather than one used solely in academic circles. The question is, who is right?
Reader Comments (85)
I agree with cedarhill.
Who should safeguard proper use of public funds if not the AG, provided the academic and scientific community has failed to do so? If that is the case, then what would constitue reasonable cause for an audit if not suspected misconduct affecting international policy, pricing, and people on a scale rarely seen in academia or science?
Like it or not, the AG is a political position filled by a person with convictions on what is right and wrong (at least I certainly hope so even in this post-normal world) so regardless of who it is, what he believes, or what he pursues, it will look to some like a "political witchhunt". So be it.
Cedarhill
But according to many like Rodger Dodger and others, Mike Mann was in the kitchen -- baking Academic Fudge!
Thank you for explaining the law in question. It is just like the screaming and yelling about the Arizona immigration law. People from the left including Obama, US Attorney General Eric H. Holder, and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano all bashed it without bothering to read it. Unlike the various multi-thousand page bills in Congress, it was only 16 pages, far too long to bother to read.
To say that science and politics are distinct entities is naive. There have always been strong ties between politics and science. From the theory of the solar system to the theory of relativity, politicians have a serious investment in science and the role that science plays in public opinion, policy, and the military. And scientists have historically been heavily involved in and outspoken towards the policies of their government. The fantasy of the brilliant apolitical scientist working completely insulated from and immune to the prejudices and misconceptions of society is fairy tale. The most significant result of Climategate is the recognition of this fantasy by yet another generation of people, including myself. Science is no more separated from politics than music or the arts.
Politics and science must remain distinct. It doesn't matter whose ideology it is that is crossing that line, all who venture over must be condemned for the sake of all science.
SimonH:
I think you are misconstruing a number of things here. Cuccinelli is not going to submit Dr. Mann's science to a jury trial, that would be inappropriate and he's acknoweledged that. Investigating whether Dr. Mann used fraud to obtain funding or mishandled that funding very much is the responsibility of the AG. He would be condemned as remiss if he failed to follow up on reasonable suspicion. What constitutes "reasonable suspicion"? The clearest case is when one investigates and, voila, finds evidence of wrong doing. Clearly the grounds for suspicion were "reasonable". As cedarhill pointed out above, the AG's office is required to do audits, much as the IRS is required to do audits of taxpayers. I can scream all I want that I was selected for political reasons, but if a fair audit exposes malfeasance it won't do me any good. Now, if the IRS audits me year-after-year without finding evidence of fraud, then THAT kind of harassment can be actionable.
The struggle over AGW has very little to do with science and everything to do with politics and control. The notion that science will settle the AGW question is delusional. Look at who has taken up the AGW crusade and look at what they stand to gain from it: Soros, Gore, Strong, Enron, GE, the Milibands, GLOBE International, The Club of Rome... the list is truly endless.
You also imply, Simon, that science is somehow a dispassionate, ideology-free search for Truth, that when scientific facts are uncovered, they will speak for themselves. That is simply not true. Facts never speak for themselves: they must be interpreted and explained and those interpretations and explanations almost always occur in the context of a world view - a unified world view that is self-validating... what we see and experience and know is what we expect to see and experience and know. Science is no exception.
Science is not Truth. The things people are willing, or should be willing, to die for are not subject to scientific investigation: love, loyalty, friendship, courage, freedom and human dignity. These are what AGW is about and why it is primarily a political fight. People like Mann, Jones, Holdren, Ehrlich.... have chosen to put their science into the service of the forces of darkness.
I consider SM correct in assessing that legal proceedings are the last thing we need. When lawyers get involved and documents get exposed and time must be spent in defense/prosecution meetings... all reasonable scientific work stops. Steve McIntyre is absolutely correct in pointing this out and crying over the toll it will take.
So yes, SM is correct in that legal proceedings are the last thing we need. The problem is Steve isn't allowing himself to realize that we've actually gone that far. Public money was spent on research to justify that more public money be spent and the results given to the public to justify more money be spent appear to have been a result of extreme negligence at best and outright fraud at worst. Lets suppose there were a study paid for by taxpayer funds to study the need to create a the biggest public works project of all time and the conclusions drawn told us that we all must spend much more than we thought much sooner than we thought. Let's then suppose that 3rd-grade-level statistics were used in creating this conclusion. I simply can't imagine a better use of the Attorney Generals office than to police this kind of abuse.
Steve isn't allowing himself to see the bigger picture in this case, for whatever reason. He can condemn this all he wants, it will do nothing to quell the anger of taxpayers.
Hot fudge here comes the judge
There's a green card in the way
The Holy Ghost and the whole East Coast
Are moving to L.A.
yeah baby...
Thank you Cedarhill for clarifying, and saying what I have said in a number of forums already. It is not idealogical, a with hunt etc; it is the law of Virginia being correctly applied.
Anyone unhappy with this should feel free to move to Virginia, register as a voter, and petition to have the law changed.
I appreciate your responses, Redbone and Robert. Obviously the simplest terms I used were too simplistic to carry my point effectively. :o)
SimonH
Politics and science must remain distinct. It doesn't matter whose ideology it is that is crossing that line, all who venture over must be condemned for the sake of all science.
Robert E. Phelan
People like Mann, Jones, Holdren, Ehrlich.... have chosen to put their science into the service of the forces of darkness.
Are you not saying the same thing? I happen to agree with both statements completely and If I had it in my power, I would have the whole lot of them stripped of their degrees, but that is no longer being done. Mann clearly crossed the line into politics when he started baking fudge. It is in my view inexcusable. It was also clearly intentional.
Don Pablo, I suspect we do agree in principle. I think we differ on response.
Robert's position seems to me more conciliatory towards Mann's misbehaviour and more aggressive towards the Man(n). My position is perhaps more conciliatory towards the individual (established practices in academia are established practices) but less forgiving of the breaches of scientific integrity. While Robert recognises and accepts that the line is crossed, I recognise it but don't accept it.
While I think Robert is keen to go toe-to-toe with Mann at the line-over-which-none-shall-cross and fight ideology against ideology, I'd prefer to convert that line into a 200ft tall barricade, with gun turrets and spotlights. Big, bright spotlights. I want a railgun, too. Like I had in Quake II.
What has gone before has broken the tenets of science that I believe we've benefited from down the centuries. I want to re-establish those tenets, and I desire to have them set firmly in law. I'd like to see the standards in academia elevated to those found in the real world, most especially because those academic standards are leaking through into the real world and are directly impacting policy decision making.
I've spoken as if for Robert. I trust he'll be forgiving and correct me if/where I'm wrong.
I am sorry, Simon, but I cannot be conciliatory to Mann. I would hang him high, in the tradition of the Old West. Pussyfooting around with such transgressions merely beget more such transgressions.
Time to move on to a new topic. :)
Don Pablo, don't get me wrong.. the emotional side of me is always screaming "GO GET HIM, TIGER!" to Cuccinelli. :o)
The problem is that the environment within which Mann operates, it transpires, is somewhat lawless. Morally, Mann was wrong and has to know that he was wrong. Not just Mann, the entire hockey team. They're all guilty of misconduct (whether defined thus in academia or not) and fraud (likewise) in my opinion.
If the hockey team had been smoking pot in a café in Amsterdam (supposing it was a legal act there), would what they were doing be illegal? In our context, fom where we sit, of course it would be, but in Holland - where the act was performed - technically not. So did they commit a crime or not? If what they did, they did entirely within academia, is it technically a crime?
The really interesting question is whether performing duties for the IPCC, outside academia and with direct implications in the real world, can be equated with bringing their pot home with them to the UK or US. What was legal for them to leave Amsterdam with is not necessarily legal for them to arrive in the UK or US with.
Okay, I promise, I'm hands-off this topic. We'll move on! :o)
SimonH:
I think you would appreciate Max Weber's 1918 lecture "Science As A Vocation" -
http://media.pfeiffer.edu/lridener/dss/Weber/scivoc.html
Robert, I'm roughly 40% through reading but have been distracted by Steve Mc's Youtube videos. Lest I forget later, many thanks for the link! :o)
cedarhill
"and yes, I've read the VA law and yes, I'm a member of the bar"
You may have read the law, but you don't seem to have bothered with the facts.
"publicly funded agency of government that was solicited by a private person "
The grant application was made through the University of Virginia, on the advice of its employees, one of which was Mann. Who is the "private person"? The University received and administered the spending of the funds.
In fact, Mann was not a principal investigator on any Va-funded grant. The only relevant grant involving State funding through UVa is:
2001-2003 Resolving the Scale-wise Sensitivities in the Dynamical Coupling Between Climate and the Biosphere, University of Virginia-Fund for Excellence in Science and Technology (FEST) [Principal Investigator: J.D. Albertson; Co-Investigators: H. Epstein, M.E. Mann] U.Va internal award: $214,700
The AG doesn't seem to have asked for any of Albertson's emails.
NICK STOKES
Private person is usually held, in the law, as any individual who is a citizen or national of the United States. You do the math.
If Mann received any monies, goods, benefit, etc., for the contract, it makes no difference as to the authority to investigate. You may be interested in knowing that principles are frequently held accountable and liable for the acts and omissions of their employees, associates, etc.
Any who knows? Maybe the AG will nominate Mann (and the Principles) to the Finnish politicians that award the Nobel Peace Prize. I understand Al Gore won one so why not Mann and who better to nominate than the VA AG?
Coming from a background in hard science (Geology/Geophysics) and Engineering(Geological), I was initially taken aback at Steve M's presentation at the recent ICCC and his answers at the following Q and A session. On reflection he is quite right, MM, KB and other hocky stick projectors are unlikely guilty of "scientific" fraud. The majority of their peers in the academic climate science community did not take them to task for deleting data that was contrary to their conclusions or for including undocumented data to enhance the "correctness" of their findings. Such practices are apparently condoned in the academic climate change research community. ( Had I used these tricks in my former life as a Geological Engineer working on ore reserves I would probably be writing this note from the plush surroundings of a government run extended vacation resort.)
Hopefuly those manageing acedemic institutions with permissive climate change research faculties will see the light transfer climate change research to their Fine Arts arenas.
cedarhill,
Mann may be a private person within the meaning of the law. But you've given no evidence that, in that capacity, he solicited anyone. U Va would have been the applicant for any State funding, and the PI (Albertson) would have communicated the application information to the University.
Your remark about "principles" being held responsible for the action of subordinates is upside-down here - UVa and Albertson are the principals, not Mann.
AS for your claims about auditing - UVa will be subject to regular audit, and for the AG to take on this role, lacking a claim that the normal audit had failed, is extraordinary. I imagine if HM AG for England and Wales decided to audit someone's tax return eyebrows would be raised.
Nick
Regular audit wouldn't pick up if funds had been applied for purposes other than those for which they were given, which I understand is the nature of the Cuccinelli inquiry.
No one has mentioned ethics and morality.
This quote from him says it all:
"I’ve taken a consistent position that the ends don’t justify the means. I don’t agree that you can justify withholding adverse verification r2 because you think that your cause is righteous or that you should exercise executive power capriciously or vindictively because you think that your cause is righteous. Both are slippery slopes. This is bedrock in our civil society."
http://climateaudit.org/2010/05/03/the-virginia-statute/#comments
And isn't the Hockey Stick an apt 'slippery slope'?
Bishop,
Cuccinelli says he is investigating whether UVa disbursed funds in breach of the Va Fraud against Taxpayers Act. That would come within the scope of a normal audit.
Nick Stokes
Really? Emotions showing instead of logic or fact.
The AG will conduct the audit under VA law. I've never accused any private person or public agency, et al, of any illegality. Even the hated AG has not claimed illegality. What he is conducting, under VA law, is a "normal audit". So what if UVA is audited by more than one agency or group. If you think for a bit you can likely name many groups that would and likely audit UVA at the Federal level (one IG for each department, sometimes even sub-depts.), several at the State level (including the VA AG) and even NGOs like the NCAA. You make a very spurious argument.
Your best argument is the motive of the AG.But see below.
Your recourse, if you dislike what the VA AG is doing, is political. The "outcry" is representative of political pressure which may cause the AG to back down for political reasons. And, I assure everyone, the VA AG will win any legal proceeding regarding the power of his office to pursue this if he chooses. But please, limit yourself to political statements.
Should you with to examine the facts, please do so in the context of the authorizing statute. Start at Virginia code 8.01-216.1and read the definitions. Then very closely read 8.01-216.4 and note the key word "shall". The only discretionary part of the law is whether the AG invokes the law. If a private person (see prior post) files a complaint (what you folks call a lawsuit) then the "shall" is invoked.
But, of course, one can't argue the facts until one has the facts can one? This, essentially, is the crux of the VA AG-Mann controversy since, would you believe, Mann may have hidden facts? This is where things can get a bit tricky and can escalate into an obstruction of justice charge which (horrors) could be prosecuted by prosecutors.
If, as some claim, there is no fire and just some lingering smoke that Mann leaves behind where ever he goes, UVA should simply comply. If there is nothing found, again as some declare without facts, then the AG can be incinerated in the political arena. It's not like folks at the Washington Post haven't already started.
Left fudge, right fraud,
Hay foot, straw foot.
The Piltdown Mann trudges
Forlorn down the Road.
Kim (May 18, 2010): Isn't that Meltdown Mann?
Ooh, Roger; I like that. It works on several levels and in all phases.
=================
Love this part noted below. “..The same legal standards for fraud apply to the academic setting that apply elsewhere..“
.
....Or do some people think that academics when applying for money should be held to a different standard? In the asking and receiving of money, fraud is fraud, no matter what the setting.
.
.
"..Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli says his investigation into the research activities of a former University of Virginia climate change scientist is about rooting out possible fraud and does not infringe upon academic freedom..."
.
“..The same legal standards for fraud apply to the academic setting that apply elsewhere,“ said Cuccinelli, who on Tuesday attended a fundraiser barbecue in Ivy for an abstinence-only education group. “The same rule of law, the same objective fact-finding process will take place...“
If climate scientists stuck to objective data analysis as Steve does, instead of being advocates for a political cause and specific climate actions, we would all be better off; certainly science would. Steve McIntyre's attitude is a shining example of what scientists of all stripes should emulate rather than excoriate.
SimonH
Would be delighted to hear your thoughts after reading the whole thing. His initial analysis of American science seems prescient. This was 1918!
Why do people call Steve a leftie? I wouldn't have thought so. Lefties don't work for the mining industry for a start. My hunch is that he's conservative, perhaps libertarian?
Steve has described himself as a Clinton Democrat before, so he's no Conservative.
You do not have to be a "Conservative" to oppose "cap and trade".
.
I also consider myself a Clinton Democrat and very much oppose the CAGW line.
.
Would vote for Clinton again if I could, but will hold my nose and vote Republican this year on this issue alone.
.
I can not stand most of the "Conservative Republican" stances on US issues, but CAGW looks to cause more harm than even the Republicans can do over the next several years. Much easier to clean up most of their silliness than letting "cap and trade" get its hook set in the US economy.
.
I mean...I have seen what its done to the Brits...its a mess :-)
Interesting. He does a good job of remaining apolitical at CA.
But by the same token, republicans and democrats aren't so ideologically variegated, as with the politics in Australia or the UK for that matter.
But why a Clinton Democrat if he's Canadian?
Bloggers here should realise that Nick Stokes is permanently drunk/high on cocaine. A couple of years ago I posted at David Stockwell's blog that although the Mauna Loa Slope Observatory reports atmospheric CO2 concentration levels, it does not record temperatures or anything else regularly since 1992, but that until 1992 there was NO correlation between its CO2 readings and T's there. Nick totally misunderstood what I was saying, in fact he said I was saying the opposite of what I did say.
the alarmist mindset is well typified by the email excerpt where they remind each other that "it is a sin to say no to a Tahiti conference"
I am still "puzzled" how CO2 can be saved by a Tahiti conference.
i would like the Royal society, and its many lords, do a special day on that.
the BBC AND Fox get free access all day! snacks provided!!
The RC brainees (Nature) contend now that the oceans stored an extra 100K exajoule (10**23 J) away in the first km band.
that would be, for, say, 200 10**6 cube km ocean an energy rise of
1 cube km is 10**12 kg H2O
so that would be about 500 Joule per kg H2O
that would be about a 0.12 degrees celsius rise in ocean temperature.
1. Where is the accuracy analysis on this?
2. Where is the TSA analysis?
3. What fundamental physical principle prevents it from radiating away?
Conclusions and trends warnings are easy enough: Where is the beef on it?
Isn't in the case, though, that Mann had a folder called "Censored" or some such name and its contents indicated that he knew the hockey stick was false. It's one think to make a mistake in research/calculation; it's quite another to deliberately conceal a known (and in this case fatal) flaw, so that the author knows that the resulting publication conveys a completely false message.
If I am right, then Steve Mc is mistaken to defend Mann on that point.