PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: invflatspin on September 20, 2018, 11:28:54 AM
-
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/19/climategate-continues-release-of-university-of-arizona-climate-emails-imminent/
After a 7 year legal fight to obtain public records from U of A, the case is finally settled once and for all. The univ is already 7 months behind on the required disclosure, but it's soon to be delivered to the public.
This will show how Mann and his fellow 'hockey stick' graph of heat bloom were communicating. It will also show how they attempted to sway, and denigrate those scientists who had different opinions, and wrote research papers which refuted the global warming mantra. I can't wait to tear into these docs.
-
I am constantly amazed at the patience of judges. After voluntarily disclosing 2400 pages of documents and then surrendering 90,000+ when they are "mandated", I would have the university in front of me with about 5 minutes to explain why they should not be held in contempt.
-
This is a big yawn for me. It's pretty clear that the hockey stick paper was a prime example of data-spinning to imply something that the data do not demonstrate. Two completely different data sets, at least one of questionable reliability, joined so as to create an unwarranted and likely false impression. Mann is a climate activist and his paper was motivated by his activism, not the science. I really couldn't care less about the details of the conversations between him and his collaborators.
And that is even though I think there is enough unassailable evidence to say that human-emitted greenhouse gases are contributing at least a significant amount of warming. I just consider activist scientists like Mann to be loose cannons who damage the public image of climatology as a field, and the reputation of science and scientists in general.
-
Nice that you discount the work product even before you see it. I guess that's somewhat telling in itself. I suspect we're going to see plenty of posturing within the climate community to impugn and denigrate anyone who doesn't follow the MMGW target. As an academic if this doesn't bother you, then you've become part of the problem. If my years of work product were to be cast aside for pure political theater, and having govt spend billions on a ponzi scheme through falsification of data and results - I would be FURIOUS. But - that's me.
-
The FME Law center sued for release of the emails and ultimately won. What more is there to be said? I may have missed where there is an "academic work product" involved here. Okay, the FME will still need to do a lot of work to compile them and present them in a comprehensible format. So I guess there is a work product involved. My bad.
Again, the story behind the Mann paper has been investigated and the truth revealed long ago. The emails might cast a little more light on the motivations and attitudes of the people involved, but the "science" behind the paper, such as it is, has been largely elucidated without them. The battle in the courts dragged on long after the general community's interest in getting the emails had dried up. We've moved on. The only thing I can see coming out of this is more political theater, much heat and only a little light.
I'll be happy to be surprised though.
-
And that is even though I think there is enough unassailable evidence to say that human-emitted greenhouse gases are contributing at least a significant amount of warming.
I appreciate your honest assessment, but upon what do you base that humans are contributing to a significant amount of warming? Especially considering the huge historical changes that occurred prior to Man, and prior to Man's industrialization? Why would scientists, and possible NASA, and NOAA have to manipulate historical data, and some scientists huge dubious assumptions to get the desired result of MAN made climate change?
-
The FME Law center sued for release of the emails and ultimately won. What more is there to be said? I may have missed where there is an "academic work product" involved here. Okay, the FME will still need to do a lot of work to compile them and present them in a comprehensible format. So I guess there is a work product involved. My bad.
OK, let me elucidate. Prof John Smith(not his real name) produces a study, after 2 years of hard work that there is no basis for support of any MMGW after using the same raw data that Mann et-al use. Smith publishes, and his study is opened for peer review(assume you understand how this works). Mann and his cabal of MMGW proponents start emailing in private how, where, when, and whom should attack and denigrate Smith's work product. They use any and all means to minimize Smith, and his work, and extend their influence with the support and succor of the fedguv which has a strong vested interest in seeing that Smith's work is not believed, or given any credit in journals and publications of the subject.
The climate 'community' therefore has torn up Smith's work, mostly as a result of not scientific objective rebuttal, but innuendo, lies, and a small conspiracy to support the billion dollar MMGW gravy train. I guess it's ok, because they are just emails showing this conspiracy to discredit. Assuming that this is what we are going to find, because right now the emails aren't released.
This is a microcosm of the big brouhaha concerning Hilary's emails which were apparently so damning that the Dems and operatives on the left went to EXTREME effort to insure most of them were never publicly released. And - what did we eventually find? That Hillary broke all kinds of rules, regulations, and committed multiple felonies by failure to secure, and protect secret and confidential materials for which she took both an sworn oath, and training before being elevated to Sec of State and as a fed Senator. In the case of Mann's emails - the holders of the data have been fighting a FOIA demand for seven years! Interesting POV you have on this.