Obstructing justice huh?
Mar 26, 2019 at 10:30 PM | tomo

Mann has been playing tricks to obstruct justice, but may have pushed his luck too far

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/26/the-reprehensible-politics-of-michaelemann/

"While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him"
- Robert Mueller

"We have not seen any report that concludes that Phil Clarke committed a crime, but (according to Phil Clarke's own words) that fact does not exonerate him"
- after Robert Mueller

There - using the same logic.

"Sticky mud, anyone want some sticky mud?"

SimonJ

Simonj, you have no idea what is, or is not in the report, you welcome one of the author's conclusions - no collusion - but you just know he is wrong to say his report provides no exoneration on the claim Dishonest Don obstructed justice.

Inconsistent, putting it mildly!

Now, where the hell is my presumption of innocence? I'm sure I had it yesterday. I must have mislaid it.

SimonJ

Ask Dr. Mann, around here he is presumed guilty until found guilty, no evidence required.

You might want to check your dictionary for the definition of exonerate.

Bored now. I did quite well out of the Trump boom, but I'm off now to restructure the portfolio on defensive lines. May as well make some money out of the orange buffoon's economic illiteracy.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=US+Recession+2019

Back on thread, the latest steaming pile at WUWT came out of some orifice of David Archibald's

What the graph shows is the departure from the average for the 30 years from 1981 to 2010. The last data point is February 2019 with a result of -0.03 degrees C. So we have had 40 years of global warming and the temperature has remained flat. In fact it is slightly cooler than the long term average. Is it possible to believe in global warming when the atmosphere has cooled? No, not rationally. Is it possible for global warming to be real if the atmosphere has cooled? Again no.

This amazing flatlining dataset is the UAH satellite lower atmosphere temperatures for the US 48 states, so 40 years of global warming is the first lie. Then he takes just one data point out of 480, the last one, and on the basis of that single reading declares the atmosphere has cooled. Archibald even confirms that the cold in North America was anomalous

And so it has come to pass. January-February had record cold over North America. 

One data point, for an unusually cool area over about 2% of the globe, is all you need to declare global cooling at WUWT. Never mind peer review, this would get rejected if presented in a GCSE essay.

This article is almost self-debunking. If you follow the link to the data, UAH show that while the Feb US48 anomaly is just negative at -0.03C, the global figure is +0.36C, and the trend for the US48 is +0.18C/decade, +0/13C/decade global. That's right, Archibald's 'cooling' dataset, when you consider all the data, shows considerably higher warming than the global equivalent.

Good enough for Anthony, though. Remember that next time somebody links to WUWT as proof of anything.

Phil, linking to anything on the internet is rarely PROOF of anything - at best it might be evidence in support of or against a proposition.

Wouldn't disagree with that.

Perhaps I should have written, remember, when anyone links to WUWT in support of anything, remember that the quality control over there is nil.

Just recently WIllis Escehnbach wrote that Europe has already experienced 2C of warming (it hasn't) so what is the big deal. Now David Archibald argues that because the US has not warmed (it has), what's the big deal?

It would be funny if only, er no, actually it is just funny.

Claiming that Mann has been exonerated simply multiplies the number of people and organisations that are exposed to hilarity, for lying without credibility. Please list them.

Dr Mann provides a list in his legal deposition to the Steyn case (which I am sure you have read in full), of the investigations that taken together demonstrate that there is no credible evidence to support any accusation that he ever engaged in any malpractice.

Besides, before someone can be 'exonerated', they are entitled to know what they are accused of; when Penn State University launched their inquiry into his conduct nobody had laid any formal charges against Dr Mann with them, and the inquiry team had to 'synthesize' possible complaints. In other words, despite the thousands of words from his critics, nobody was prepared to leave the safe spaces of their blogs and make a formal charge against Dr Mann in an arena where it might actually make a difference and where their claims would be subject to expert scrutiny. How very odd.

At the time of initiation of the inquiry, and in the ensuing days during the inquiry, no formal allegations accusing Dr. Mann of research misconduct were submitted to any University official. As a result, the emails and other communications were reviewed by Dr. Pell and from these she synthesized the following four formal allegations. To be clear, these were not allegations that Dr. Pell put forth, or leveled against Dr. Mann, but rather were her best effort to reduce to allegation form the many different accusations that were received from parties outside of the University.

The four synthesized allegations were as follows:

1. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to suppress or falsify data?

2 Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4, as suggested by Phil Jones?

3. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any misuse of privileged or confidential information available to you in your capacity as an academic scholar?

4. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities?

The inquiry found these allegations had no credible evidence to support them, and unanimously concluded that they were without substance.

Mar 27, 2019 at 10:03 PM | Phil Clarke
Why did Mann put his name to Harvey et al?

Why did you believe Gergis?

You just seem to be getting desperate to hold on to phoney science, that is not supported by evidence. You also seem to be holding on to Steele's Dodgy Dossier, and accusing Trump of lying, when your sources are unreliable and now proven to be liars indulging in writing fiction

'Bored now' ........ 'but I'm off now'
Mar 27, 2019 at 1:30 PM | Unregistered Commenter Phil Clarke

At this point I got really excited! Yes, YES, he's going away!

That lasted all of 6 hours and 17 minutes, until 7:47 PM, then again at 8:49, 9:06, 10:03
Ah well, that'll teach me not to get my hopes up.

SimonJ

Mar 28, 2019 at 8:11 AM | SimonJ

Science requires honesty.

Climate Science depends on dishonesty, and Phil Clarke can be relied on to prove it.

1. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to suppress or falsify data?

who wants to know?

2 Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4, as suggested by Phil Jones?

who wants to know?

3. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any misuse of privileged or confidential information available to you in your capacity as an academic scholar?

who wants to know?

4. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities?

depends on who's asking.

Mar 29, 2019 at 2:34 AM | clipe

Mann is unhappy about appearing in Court. I wonder whether he will be happier about appearing before Happer?
They can just stick to Hockey Stick science, and avoid the Fifth Amendment

Any members of the Hockey Teamsters directly employed by the US Taxpayer, could get involved, as they were very keen to witness some Impeachment proceedings to further their interests.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Phil is from Huckley, in Sussex, and has voted the hockey stick's shaft flat, tho' we know its rounds and curves. The silly, to so ignore nature, but it is the alarmists' major flaw, a dependence upon narrative over observation and understanding.
================================

Truth at last.

My dear Anthony… I’ve been a visitor to these pages for many years, and truly admire your tenacity and diligence, but honestly… what did you think would happen if you cited Breitbart – seriously… Breit-Fecking-Bart… as a source?

Breitbart – famously and unashamedly alt-Right, home of every mindless red-neck numbskull half-baked made up conspiracy, Steve Bannon… say it again… STEVE FASCIST RAPIST ALCOHOLIC BANNON… and you want to be treated seriously? Exactly how naïve are you? Did you really come down with the last shower? Could you not, with the vast intellect at your disposal, forecast exactly what the response would be? BREITBART! The very skin on your face should burst into flames with the shame of not having realised the most blindingly obvious consequence of citing BREITBART… just the very oxymoronic concept of putting the words “Breitbart” and “article” in the same sentence and expecting a considered and worthy response is utterly, mind-crushingly, imbecilic and cretinous beyond my ability to express it in words.

It doesn’t matter how strong your argument is, how telling, cogent and pretty your graphs are, how unimpeachable your sources are, how many letters you have after your name and how incontrovertible is your evidence, you’ve taken all of that and thrown it down the piss stained shitty toilet that is Breitbart…

Breitbart… you proudly display the maxim of your resolve at the top of the page… a quote from Andrew Breitbart. With that single act, you devalue everything that comes after it – the scholarly analyses, the in-depth of research, the calling out of the whole sorry climate change fiasco – and render it utterly pointless. If you don’t know why, then first of all, shame on you, and second, do you not have the faintest inkling of how this all works? Why the sceptics are being disparaged, sidelined, ignored and ridiculed? Why the Eco-Taliban are winning, and why you are powerless to anything about it, and why, ultimately, you will fail and they will win? I can tell you why, and many others can too – but until you can work it out for yourself, and do something about it, it’s pointless to continue. You may as well run up the white flag, concede defeat, close down WUWT and spend the rest of your life doing something useful, like a cat sanctuary. It’s a crying shame that the blindingly obvious falsehoods of those you oppose and do battle with will continue unchecked because you have hitched the wagon of the sceptics to the alt-right/Bannon/Breitbart/Trump kakistocrats (look it up, for Gods sake), and now all of us who haven’t fallen for it have been tarred with the same brush. Thanks for that, by the way.

You’re quite used to the Australian habit of plain speaking, I expect, so I’ll try to put my final comments in terms that you might understand. You’re a tw@t. Educated beyond your intelligence. You’ve got your head stuck up your arse. Got it yet? Don’t bother replying, I won’t read it and I won’t answer. They won. You lost. They were smarter than you. Wrong, but smarter, and that’s what counts. I thought you were smarter than them. I was wrong, you were wrong, and they won, because they understood how to win, and you did not, but dragged the rest of us down with you, because you got it wrong. Here’s your medal.

Outstanding.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/01/10/friday-funny-dont-get-mann-handled-choose-the-right-answer/#comment-2890435

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/10/significant-interview-with-patrick-moore-on-breitbart-merits-a-listen-and-more-exposure/
And here is the Breitbart article.

Greenpeace Founder: Global Warming Hoax Pushed by Corrupt Scientists ‘Hooked on Government Grants’

Fear has been used all through history to gain control of people’s minds and wallets and all else, and the climate catastrophe is strictly a fear campaign — well, fear and guilt — you’re afraid you’re killing your children because you’re driving them in your SUV and emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and you feel guilty for doing that. There’s no stronger motivation than those two.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/21/the-class-act-of-michael-mann-and-joelle-gergis/
The 'class act' of Michael Mann and Joelle Gergis
Anthony Watts / November 21, 2012
Joelle Gergis and Michael Mann commiserate on Facebook via Tom Nelson
It starts out well enough…except that Kenji never signed off on the UCS report.

“When Research is Attacked” | Facebook
Joelle Gergis Thanks for your encouragement Mike, it’s been a hell of a year. I’ve just chased up the UCS report and forwarded it on through my network to get the word out. Hope things are going well for your these days, you are an inspiration to many of us. I look forward to catching up with you soon…

“When Research is Attacked” | Facebook

Michael E. Mann thanks Joelle–My hope is that this (and the UCS report) proves helpful to you and other young scientists in the field who are increasingly being harassed by the usual suspects. Keep up the great work you are doing, and DON’T let the b@$#aRds get you down!

McIntyre’s triumph over Gergis, Karoly, and Mann | Watts Up With That?

Mann, in correspondence with the authors Gergis and Karoly, in his typical style tried to sell a collection different workarounds for the problems they brought on themselves, and in the end, his advice was rejected, the JC editors told the authors the paper was not viable, and the authors were forced to withdraw the paper. Full stop.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/01/11/fake-news-the-idea-that-greenies-would-oppose-measures-to-prevent-fires-is-simply-false/“

Tragic times when Gergis is promoted as an Award Winning Climate Scientist
" It’s really reckless and extremely harmful,” said Joëlle Gergis, an award-winning climate scientist at the Australian National University.“It’s insidious because it grows. Once you plant those seeds of doubt, it stops an important conversation from taking place.”

Lies and deception by Climate Science. Not worthy of taxpayer funding.

http://joannenova.com.au/2020/01/busted-reef-fish-arent-bothered-by-acidification-scientific-fraud-ok-at-james-cook-uni/