National Science Foundation (NSF) inspector general: “Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed.”
Two things we know with extremely high confidence:
Recent warming is unprecedented in magnitude, speed, and cause (so the temperature history looks like a hockey stick).
Michael Mann, the lead author on the original hockey stick paper, is one of the nation’s top climatologists and a source of first-rate analysis.
h/t to Marc Morano
Two things we know with extremely high confidence:
Recent warming is precedented in magnitude, speed, and cause (so the temperature history looks cyclical).
Michael Mann, the lead scammer on the original hockey stick fraud, is one of the nation’s top grantologists and a source of first-rate BS.
Mann and his hockey stick combine to make one one of the easiest arguments for converting new sceptics. That he continues to draw fervent support gives strength to the ideas that a) climate scientists lack discrimination, logic and integrity and b) they desperately need his pathetic stick to support their flagging theories.
Baghdad Romm
Tripoli Tony.
“Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed.”
In that case Prof Mann’s emails will be without evidence of research misconduct or other matter, and therefore will be harmless if published. UVA can with great confidence make them available for us to examine, as they did on the behalf of Prof Michaels.
I therefore expect Mr Romm will welcome their publication in the vindication of Prof Mann.
(Hey, I’m sure I just saw a flying pig. Wow! That’s strange, never seen that before.)
Background info on Marc Morano:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano
So?
Just giving some info.
Brian, really — sourcing from a lib site and it was just providing background info.
Brian:
When did you stop beating your wife?
Let’s do a little compare and contrast, shall we?
From Heartland’s ‘about’ page…
“Two committees provide outside advice and expertise: a Board of Policy Advisors and the Board of Legislative Advisors. The former consists of more than 100 academics and professional economists who conduct research and participate in peer review of the institute’s publications.”
And now Sourcewatch…
“Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by professionals with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information.”
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch:General_disclaimer
Great ‘source’ of info Brian, George Soros approved, BAAAAAAAA!
Didn’t know that. Thanks for the heads up.
No worries, Brian. I would expect that most of the people here are well aware of Marc’s positions and history. For skeptics, he provided an invaluable service in his position with Inhofe. I dare say this would be an entirely different discussion were it not for the likes of Mr. Moreno. But then, there have been others on the other side that can say the same.
That’s not a name I would want to be linked with. I’ve read about him.
Well, as shown above, one should endeavor to vet the sources. I’ve haven’t seen anything Marc has done that anyone would or should be cautious about associating with him.
Is this graph mapping the decline in Romm’s credibility?
When are the rest of the emails coming out?
Why do they insist on defending Mann and the Hockey stick? I can not think of anything else they could do that would be more harmful too their credibility.
Do they not realize that no matter how clever their statistical “trick” is, there is still the whole combined history of hundreds, even thousands, of proxies, papers and accounts that confirm the MWP. Those don’t disappear just because you could produce one that said something else. Sorry but one person telling me a story about seeing a ghost, doesn’t make me forget that there has been no proof up to that point.
Exceptional claims require exception proof. Not just statistical tricks.
They are too much invested in the hockey stick. They can never admit it was a mistake. Imagine all that it would call into question. Remember the IPCC prominently displayed the graph in the past. The MWP and LIA can’t be seen as real because then they’d have to explain how those swings occurred and how they know this time is different. As long as the idea of CAGW is alive, they will continue to try and frame the hockey stick as a valid scientific endeavor.
And they will continue to look like a five year old with chocolate around his mouth, innocently claiming he didn’t eat the cake.
This has reached the point that it isn’t the climate scientists who Im shaking my head at anymore, it is the blogs full of frothing at the mouth true believers of AGW that worry me.
A few scientists worried about their career is one thing, but huge sections of the population that will pretend something is real just because they don’t want to look stupid is another. How far are they willing to go to avoid admitting they were wrong? I have seen people go to incredible lengths to avoid admitting they were wrong.