tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post3742728147168829385..comments2024-02-16T17:52:44.944-06:00Comments on The Nuclear Green Revolution: On the Persecution of Michael MannCharles Bartonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-2207245822143454472010-11-26T23:41:21.369-06:002010-11-26T23:41:21.369-06:00Anon, your report appears to be accurate, and sugg...Anon, your report appears to be accurate, and suggests that while Michael Mann appears to have not broken any Virginia law in the conduct and reporting of his research, some of his critics may have been guilty of ethical and perhaps legal lapses.Charles Bartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-31223544845886598192010-11-26T19:07:00.952-06:002010-11-26T19:07:00.952-06:00One very real "hockey stick" scandal tha...One very real "hockey stick" scandal that has very little with Michael Mann is the 2006 Wegman report to the US congress. Purporting to be an independent scholarly assessment of the "hockey stick" and other aspects of climate science by a team of eminent statisticians, it has been shown to be not only seriously flawed but riddled with plagiarized text.<br /><br />Computer scientist John Massey has meticulously dissected the text of the Wegman report and shown that 35 of the 91 pages are largely plagiarized.<br /><br />http://deepclimate.org/2010/09/26/strange-scholarship-wegman-report/<br /><br />Wegman is now under investigation by George Mason University:<br /><br />http://deepclimate.org/2010/10/08/wegman-under-investigation-by-george-mason-university/<br /><br />Plagiarism is a serious academic misdeed. One has to ask whether the US congress should expect any lesser standard.<br /><br />Expect to hear more about this as it seeps into the main stream media.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-65028809271987664862010-11-26T04:51:23.756-06:002010-11-26T04:51:23.756-06:00Charles and CharlesH - I think there is a high lik...Charles and CharlesH - I think there is a high likelihood that the issue you are discussing really has little to do with political ideology.<br /><br />I agree with CharlesH on one comment - support for nuclear energy should be a litmus test of sincerity for people who proclaim to be very worried about the effects of combustion product emissions to the environment. I also agree with Charles Barton that some of the world's top scientists have been warning about the negative effects of dumping fossil fuel waste products into the environment since before I was born - and I am a grandfather.<br /><br />There is a distinct possibility that people who deny the risks associated with dumping combustion products on the right are actually team members with people on the left who deny the benefits of emission free nuclear energy and claim to be promoting wind and solar energy. In both cases, the beneficiary of the activity is the fossil fuel industry. <br /><br />Fossil fuel pushers gain when politicians on the right from Oklahoma and Alaska say "drill baby, drill" and deny the risk of combustion waste. They gain when Greens in Germany fight nuclear energy to the point of chaining themselves to railroad tracks. They also benefit when "liberal" bloggers like Romm quote their Lovins mentor and claim that nuclear energy is simply too expensive to matter.<br /><br />I think that this is no coincidence. The leaders in the fossil fuel industry are plenty savvy enough to understand that a variety of policies that reduce people's fear of their product and increase people's fear of their competitor's product all lead to increased sales, revenue and power.<br /><br />Rod Adams<br />Publisher, Atomic InsightsRod Adamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03652375336090790205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-782883920862774362010-11-25T10:48:29.735-06:002010-11-25T10:48:29.735-06:00charlesH,
If you could get your head of ClimateAu...charlesH,<br /><br />If you could get your head of ClimateAudit and their unhealthy obsession with Mann for a little while you should take a look at the many temperature reconstructions from multiple researchers using different proxies and analyses that broadly agree with Mann's original hockey stick.<br /><br />http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/recons.html<br /><br />It sure looks like Mann was right.<br /><br />The attempted vilification of Mann is quite sickening and has nothing whatsoever to do with science.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-17163248577350084402010-11-25T07:17:55.159-06:002010-11-25T07:17:55.159-06:00Charles H., I had another response to your comment...Charles H., I had another response to your comments, but i decided to turn it into a separate post.Charles Bartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-43196423420188946552010-11-25T05:50:45.853-06:002010-11-25T05:50:45.853-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Charles Bartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-31690425002794330552010-11-25T03:42:31.928-06:002010-11-25T03:42:31.928-06:00Charles H, you have outlined the charges against M...Charles H, you have outlined the charges against Michael Mann made by the climate audit crowd, You have not in your account of the charges claimed that Dr. Mann has done anything criminal, that would justify the current witch hunt in Virginia. Further, you have failed to provide any account of Dr. Mann's defense in response to the charges against him, and you have failed to explain why Dr. Mann's colleagues in the climate science appear to continued to hold him in high regard. Further you have not explained why several independent investigation by reputable organizations have concluded that Dr. Mann's research methods conform to accepted scientific practices.Charles Bartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-37400939975080331452010-11-24T16:16:26.687-06:002010-11-24T16:16:26.687-06:00CharlesB,
I hold Mann in the same regard as I hol...CharlesB,<br /><br />I hold Mann in the same regard as I hold Romm. I don't have this opinion of all climate scientists. While I don't share Dr. Hansen's concern regarding co2 I respect his sincerity evident in his support for nuclear/LFTR. I really like Roger Piekle Jr. who says he is a warmer. Judith Curry also attracts my respect. <br /><br />Mann is guilty of:<br /><br />1) Using proxies (tree rings) that are not good temperature proxies at all and then hiding data that illustrate this fact (e.g. "hide the decline").(anti scientific process)<br /><br />2) Using poor statistics. Mann's statistics finds "hockey sticks" in "red/random noise". (anti scientific process) <br /><br />3) Hiding his data from those who would like to confirm his analysis (anti scientific process).<br /><br />4) Trying to subvert the peer review process. Trying to prevent papers that don't agree with him from being published and out of the IPCC process.(anti scientific process)<br /><br /><br />I challenge you to find any scientist/engineer (not seeking AGW grant money) that has followed Climate Audit closely to disagree with me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-12335623145039237152010-11-24T15:14:55.690-06:002010-11-24T15:14:55.690-06:00Charles H, irst, my defense of Michael man had not...Charles H, irst, my defense of Michael man had nothing to do with the quality of his scientific work. It is a response to repeated charges that he had perpetrated a hoax with his work, that he had committed deliberate fraud and that there is probable cause to believe that he has committed one or more crimes in the course of his research, So far no one has offered a a defense of these charges. You have offered confirmation of some of my other concerns. You have divided the world into good guys and bad guys, and you express a great deal of emotion about people you have decided are bad guys, while you express admiration and probably give your trust to the good guys. You admit a strong hate Michael Man, and that is enough to confirm the label of bad scientist in your eyes. Further you believe in your capacity to be objective despite your own deep emotional involvement. Do your emotions distort your judgement? That would be the case for most people, so why not you?Charles Bartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-70217658085809180982010-11-24T13:38:28.196-06:002010-11-24T13:38:28.196-06:00Burning a major portion of fossil fuels in few cen...Burning a major portion of fossil fuels in few centuries that took mother nature millions of years to accumulate must have some impact on environment no matter who says whatever. In any case, using fossil fuels to generate base load electricity when much better carbon free options exist in nuclear energy is morally wrong. It is wrong to burn the fossil resource feedstock, needed for future chemical industry.<br />It saddens me to see political divisions and fighting over the obvious. I am a conservative, however, I do not agree with special interests who propagate the use of fossil fuels in power generation for their own financial interests only, while blindly denying any possibility that such practice can be harmful to environment and future generations.<br />I also strongly disagree with hard core environmentalists whose chronic blindness and untamed zeal for solar/wind power is causing increase in fossil fuel consumption and financial/material resource waste.<br />Germany is the perfect example in this lunatic doctrine. Their failed alternate energy policy is supplanted by coal fired power plants and by electricity imports, thankfully some of those power imports are generated in French and Czech nuclear power plants. Nevertheless, such sucking power demand for the neighbor's juice is driving the cost of electricity up in exporting countries, especially in Czech republic, hence the population is made to suffer for the idiotic energy policies of their neighbor.<br />When you look at hyper pathetic performance from German solar power plants it gives you the quick realistic picture.Frank Kandrnalnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-24069681911786414762010-11-24T10:42:04.301-06:002010-11-24T10:42:04.301-06:00charlesH,
Speaking as one who has a science degre...charlesH,<br /><br />Speaking as one who has a science degree (physics) and has followed this issue closely over the last few years, Climate Audit is vastly more scientific than Mann et al. (Do you follow Climate Audit closely?)<br /><br />I stand by my comparison of Mann to Romm. If you want to understand why I hold Mann is such contempt email me. <br /><br />The issue is not AGW. Conservatives/skeptics believe in AGW. The issue is CAGW or not. Everyone agrees that the sensitivity is ~1dc for co2 alone. The scientific debate is about the feedbacks. Warmers assume 1 to 5dc and skeptics say 0.5 to 1 is more likely.<br /><br />You are free to have a different opinion. I have moved on long ago from debating CAGW to pushing LFTR as a solution that should appeal to both warmers and skeptics. But please stop saying conservative/skeptics are obviously stupid/evil because they don't believe in AGW. They do believe in AGW. They just don't believe the evidence for CAGW is strong enough to justify shifting to high cost unreliable wind/solar and increasing the suffering of the poor.<br /><br />charlesHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-30696380918581503262010-11-24T09:49:15.993-06:002010-11-24T09:49:15.993-06:00I think you do wrong to dismiss climate audit whol...I think you do wrong to dismiss climate audit wholesale. It's a useful gadfly that can improve the quality of climate science, if those in the community can depoliticize enough to listen.<br /><br />Michael Mann et al are experts on paleoclimatology, but they do not appear to be experts at statistical methods. I get that--I can remember back to some of the statistical and modeling tools I used for my PhD and how my grasp of them was just enough to be dangerous. This is very common across science--core expertise is expanded by a broad toolbox of necessary tools. For something as important as this, though, should we not try to improve the quality of our tools and the correctness of their application? Should we not strive also to select valid and unbiased data? The lack of willingness to do so is my main criticism of Michael Mann and my caution toward his work.Ericnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-15267159074181418892010-11-24T09:36:50.956-06:002010-11-24T09:36:50.956-06:00Charles,
You are too right on the subject of LF...Charles, <br /><br />You are too right on the subject of LFTR pushing the right buttons for conservatives. In fact, the improved safety and more manageable waste that the thorium fuel cycle brings have the potential to likewise be more palatable to greens/liberals.<br /><br />Let me challenge you a bit, though, in your prescription for conservatives. Should conservatives just get on board the bandwagon of cap and trade, with solar and wind (and positive thoughts) as the presumed panacea? Is anyone better off if we all agree on the problem but delude ourselves about the solution? I view nuclear power acceptance as the litmus test of whether any liberal is truly serious about addressing climate change.Ericnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-67864030149121772402010-11-24T09:03:39.866-06:002010-11-24T09:03:39.866-06:00Charles H, I am saying that if conservatives think...Charles H, I am saying that if conservatives think that AGW is junk science then conservatism is in deep trouble. There was always a serious scientific doubt about corn ethanol. There was never a scientific consensus about it.<br /><br />By your account I am an alarmist, because I am deeply concerned about anthropogenic global warming. That is because I pay attention to what serious scientist have told me, for the last 40 years. You make another serious mistake when you classify Mann with Romm. That just will not fly with people who know the score. If you were really opposed to junk science you would ignore climate audit.Charles Bartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-55472008531106191842010-11-24T08:31:33.807-06:002010-11-24T08:31:33.807-06:00Charles,
Are you saying conservative shouldn'...Charles,<br /><br />Are you saying conservative shouldn't fight junk science? Mann, Romm, ..... Al Gore has recently admitted that corn ethanol subsidies are a bad idea (poor people starve etc). Should we wait until Mann and Romm kill people before they are fought?<br /><br />Would you consider yourself close to Joe Romm? Romm is the most prominent liberal/warmer I think.<br /><br />On energy policy, you are in the conservatives camp are you not? Conservative are for low cost energy to lift the worlds poor out of poverty. Libs/enviros are happy with high cost energy, fewer people, few resources consumed.<br /><br />LFTR is low cost energy to the world's poor.<br /><br />charlesHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-18294645566334987452010-11-24T07:41:26.954-06:002010-11-24T07:41:26.954-06:00Charles H, you Conservatives have been so blinded ...Charles H, you Conservatives have been so blinded by their hate of climate scientists, that you conservatives don't see the harm you are doing to yourselves and quite possibly to your country. You need to get over it. The right wings solution to every problem seems to be to preach and practice hate for the people you disagree with. Hating Michael Mann is not going to change the reality of climate change, and calling him a bad scientist is not going to change the fact that his fellow climate scientists admire him. The country needs you to work toward solutions, not to hate the climate scientists. The mitigation processes i favor are consistent with conservative and libertarian principles, but conservatives are not going to have a say, if they continue to demonize Michael Mann.Charles Bartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-84221451331797551202010-11-24T07:09:47.926-06:002010-11-24T07:09:47.926-06:00Mann represents the worst in climate science. The...Mann represents the worst in climate science. The tree ring stuff is a joke as anyone with a science background can see.<br /><br />That said, warmers can have less co2 if they will start pushing nuclear/LFTR rather than wind/solar.<br /><br />One only has to look at Europe to see that France/nuclear has a low carbon footprint while Germany/wind/solar does not.<br /><br />CharlesHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-60484837407173378932010-11-24T06:31:51.368-06:002010-11-24T06:31:51.368-06:00When i accepted the MSR/LFTR energy solution in 20...When i accepted the MSR/LFTR energy solution in 2007, I almost immediately realized that it was consistant with the sort of energy policy that conservatives could accept, and that it was sellable to conservatives without forcing them to accept the reality of climate change. Conservatives far to often want to make climate change about not liking Al Gore. My message to the right is get over it, stop putting partisan interests above the interests of our country, and start working toward acceptance of viable solutions to the national energy policy.Charles Bartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-12549012233630856212010-11-24T06:12:54.016-06:002010-11-24T06:12:54.016-06:00Michael Mann is an influential figure in my own vi...Michael Mann is an influential figure in my own views on climate change. Before I begame aware of him, I didn't think much about the subject. Now, everything I learn about how the sausage of paleoclimate modeling is done (by him and others) makes me--a career scientist--sceptical of the confident pronouncements of certainty. Did we have a midaeval warm period? Not if he can help it! Yes, Michael Mann has done more than anyone to make me...careful...on the subject of climate change.<br /><br />Now, before I'm tarred and feathered as a "denier", you need to know that I'm a rabid fan of Th and nuclear power in general as the solution to our energy future. Do I think we should change our energy policy? Absolutely. But ideologically pure approaches like solar and wind are no panacea. I don't know how important it is to do how much to change our energy policy by when, though, and neither does Michael Mann.Ericnoreply@blogger.com