Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#1,476
#1,476
Another Fact: Jones urges Michael Mann to delete climate data.


On January 16, 2004, in leaked CRU email 1074277559 exchange Jones frantically urges Penn State University climatologist, Michael Mann, to delete data:


Subject: Climatic Change needs your advice—YOUR EYES ONLY !!!!!

Mike,

This is for YOUR EYES ONLY. Delete after reading—please! I’m trying to redress the balance. One reply from Christian Pfister said you should make all available!! Pot calling the kettle black—Christian doesn’t make his methods available. … I told Steve separately, and told him to get more advice from a few others, as well as Kluwer (publishers), and the legal department.

PLEASE DELETE—just for you, not even for Ray Bradley and Malcolm Hughes.

This is called evidence of collusion.
 
Last edited:
#1,477
#1,477
Sandvol said:
Again, let's just stick to the facts:

Jones failed to provide the information in the freedom of information request.

This information weakens AGW and Mann's "hockey stick."

Jones admitted he omitted the information intentionally.

At the time Jones and Mann were communicating by e-mail and some of the e-mails were lost.

These are indisputable facts.

Now may I ask you a question before I go on with other facts? What peer reviewed study are you talking about that used similar data collection methods and testing that corroborated Jones' unreleased information and was published?
Click to expand...

Is the information you are talking about the raw temp data from the countries that didn't want the info released? If so, that doesn't make me raise my eyebrows.

As for lost emails - one should be publicly admonished for deleting emails that could pertain to a FOI request and authorities should decide whether charges apply.

As for your last point, I am talking about the NOAA and NASA published global average temperatures. The raw data NASA uses is available. The CRU results agreed with these data sets. So I don't think he was playing too many games. It would be different if his data showed significantly more warming but he wouldn't show you why.
 
#1,480
#1,480
Sandvol said:
Another Fact: Jones urges Michael Mann to delete climate data.


On January 16, 2004, in leaked CRU email 1074277559 exchange Jones frantically urges Penn State University climatologist, Michael Mann, to delete data:


Subject: Climatic Change needs your advice—YOUR EYES ONLY !!!!!

Mike,

This is for YOUR EYES ONLY. Delete after reading—please! I’m trying to redress the balance. One reply from Christian Pfister said you should make all available!! Pot calling the kettle black—Christian doesn’t make his methods available. … I told Steve separately, and told him to get more advice from a few others, as well as Kluwer (publishers), and the legal department.

PLEASE DELETE—just for you, not even for Ray Bradley and Malcolm Hughes.

This is called evidence of collusion.
Click to expand...

Collusion to what end here?

I don't even get the context of the above exchange.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,486
#1,486
Here is a blurb from the Penn State inquiry where Mann admits Jones asked him to delete important data:

The internal enquiry has found that Mann did not “participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data”. For the full report, click here (pdf).

Nor did he “delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data” relating to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2007 report. One email that has received much media attention was sent to Mann by Phil Jones, then director of the UEA’s Climatic Research Centre, on 29 May 2008. It asked Mann to delete some emails regarding the 2007 IPCC report.

In the months since the email leak, Mann has repeatedly said that he did not heed to Jones’ request. Penn State’s enquiry confirmed this.

The report is not clear about whether Mann’s behaviour has harmed the public trust in science. It cites Penn State’s official ethical standards, which says faculty have an obligation to maintain high ethical standards in order to foster public trust in science. It then goes on to discuss the fallout from the email leak which, it says, may have polarised the public into two camps: one that believes the leak undermines climate science and another that does not.

“After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee could not make a definitive finding whether there exists any evidence to substantiate that Dr. Mann did engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that deviated from accepted practices within the academic community,” reads the report. This final point will now be at the centre of a further investigation.

“This is very much the vindication I expected since I am confident I have done nothing wrong,” Mann told New Scientist. “I fully support the additional inquiry which may be the best way to remove any lingering doubts.”

This is another fact.
 
#1,488
#1,488
TennTradition said:
Delete data or the email? Did the email contain data? What were the emails before and after about? What was the data about?
Click to expand...

Why don't you e-mail Mann and ask him? I get from the inquiry it was temperature data. Again, You asked me why I don't trust pre 1958 data and I'm telling you why and why I don't trust climate scientists. You expect me to place more importance in your supposition than the facts I have presented. I think these facts so far would at least cause a reasonable person not to trust. I've got more reasons but I have to go to New Year's party.
 
#1,489
#1,489
Sandvol said:
Here is a blurb from the Penn State inquiry where Mann admits Jones asked him to delete important data:

The internal enquiry has found that Mann did not “participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data”. For the full report, click here (pdf).

Nor did he “delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data” relating to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2007 report. One email that has received much media attention was sent to Mann by Phil Jones, then director of the UEA’s Climatic Research Centre, on 29 May 2008. It asked Mann to delete some emails regarding the 2007 IPCC report.

In the months since the email leak, Mann has repeatedly said that he did not heed to Jones’ request. Penn State’s enquiry confirmed this.

The report is not clear about whether Mann’s behaviour has harmed the public trust in science. It cites Penn State’s official ethical standards, which says faculty have an obligation to maintain high ethical standards in order to foster public trust in science. It then goes on to discuss the fallout from the email leak which, it says, may have polarised the public into two camps: one that believes the leak undermines climate science and another that does not.

“After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee could not make a definitive finding whether there exists any evidence to substantiate that Dr. Mann did engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that deviated from accepted practices within the academic community,” reads the report. This final point will now be at the centre of a further investigation.

“This is very much the vindication I expected since I am confident I have done nothing wrong,” Mann told New Scientist. “I fully support the additional inquiry which may be the best way to remove any lingering doubts.”

This is another fact.
Click to expand...

As I said above, deleting things to avoid FOI laws is a clear no-no. Now, if you want someone to delete an email where you attack someone whose methods or abilities you don't like/respect because you think it might eventually become public - I'm not going to personally get too worked up about that. If you are fudging data and want the emails cleared because of that - then that is clearly something I would take issue with. The problem with requesting any emails be deleted is because it gives the appearance of impropriety. I get that. But that alone doesn't signal to me a death knell.

And in is instance it would appear to be attempted collusion at worst since there is no evidence Mann heeded it.

And what context am I missing in order to know this pertains to the IPCC report?
 
Last edited:
#1,490
#1,490
Sandvol said:
Why don't you e-mail Mann and ask him? I get from the inquiry it was temperature data. Again, You asked me why I don't trust pre 1958 data and I'm telling you why and why I don't trust climate scientists. You expect me to place more importance in your supposition than the facts I have presented. I think these facts so far would at least cause a reasonable person not to trust. I've got more reasons but I have to go to New Year's party.
Click to expand...

If it is just a matter of your distrust that is one thing.

However, I had understood you to say Climategate was a dagger to the heart of AGW and I didn't see anything here that would lead me to say that.

I'm not trying to be defensive or overly argumentative. I was legitimately interested in what the true details were. That's why I watched the videos. And it is why I'm interested in the context around these emails. I'm not going to knock an entire academic field because one guy asked another to delete email(s) when I don't have any context on what the content was.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,491
#1,491
TennTradition said:
As I said above, deleting things to avoid FOI laws is a clear no-no. Now, if you want someone to delete an email where attack someone whose methods or abilities you don't like/respect because you think it might eventually become public - I'm not going to personally get too worked up about that. If you are fudging data and want the emails cleared because of that - then that is clearly something I would take issue with. The problem with requesting any emails be deleted is because it gives the appearance of impropriety. I get that. But that alone doesn't signal to me a death knell.

And in is instance it would appear to be attempted collusion at worst since there is no evidence Mann heeded it.

And what context am I missing in order to know this pertains to the IPCC report?
Click to expand...

I got to run but I don't think Penn State or CRU has ever disclosed the data in question but you can clearly see that Mann believes what Jones was asking him to do was wrong. Each particular fact in itself is not damaging but a series of supportive facts is. Have a good New Year.
 
#1,493
#1,493
Sandvol said:
I got to run but I don't think Penn State or CRU has ever disclosed the data in question but you can clearly see that Mann believes what Jones was asking him to do was wrong. Each particular fact in itself is not damaging but a series of supportive facts is. Have a good New Year.
Click to expand...

Happy New Year
 
#1,499
#1,499
orangeslice13 said:
Climate change.

You see we caused the temp to go up so now it has nowhere to go but down.

You clearly didn't see the movie the day after tomorrow
Click to expand...

I guess.. Im starting to think we live in a movie called "Slaves to the Govt, pay more taxes". Starring the dumbed down American people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,500
#1,500
Global Sea Ice largest ever recorded and is trending higher

December 31 Global Sea Ice Area Was The Largest Ever Recorded | Real Science

screenhunter_1209-jan-02-07-58.gif
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top