Paths To Knowledge (dot Science)

What is actually real in Objective Reality? How do you know? Now, prove it's real!

Call for Resignation of Phil Jones, Michael Mann, et. al. (Gavin Schmidt, Eugene Wahl, Caspar Ammann, …) for their role in Climategate

Posted by pwl on November 24, 2009

The alleged Climategate science criminals and the alleged crimes and unethical acts they committed.

If all you do is watch this one video this is the one video to watch to get a summary of what Climategate is all about.

If you’ve not heard the shocking news, the key scientists behind the main proof for human caused global warming (AGW) have had their internal emails and computer programs exposed by a whistle-blower revealing that they cooked the books to make it seem like the planet it warming.

They faked their data and committed other crimes such as deleting data when presented with a Freedom of Information Request which is a crime in Great Brittan. They are also the key players on the UN’s IPCC. The infamous Hockey Stick Graph is Al Gore’s film has now been unequivocally proven to be not just wrong but criminally faked!

The video in the article is an excellent summary of the key players and their specific crimes identified so far.

Mann’s work doesn’t meet that definition [of science], and those who use Mann’s curve in their arguments are not making a scientific argument. One of Pournelle’s Laws states “You can prove anything if you can make up your data.” I will now add another Pournelle’s Law: “You can prove anything if you can keep your algorithms secret.”
–Jerry Pournelle, 18 February 2005
East Anglia Emails, 1109021312.txt

“It’s getting pretty clear what happened. These academics, who were influential in framing the UN climate report on which most of the political decisions on what to do about man-made global warming depend, became alarmed when the data over the past few years didn’t support the predictions of their models. At this point they had a choice: to accept the new data and see what that did to the theory, or simply to cover it up because they were convinced the basic theory was correct and the issue was too important to allow the theory to come under serious doubt.” – Jerry Pournell, 24 November 2009

Guess what they chose? Did they choose honoring the scientific method and follow the data where it lead? NOPE! They actually choose the Dark Side of the Forcings and the results are now revealed to all to see. As a direct result they choose to not be scientists anymore as the evidence illuminates so clearly. They choose to be political activists with a cause ignoring the actual data rather than scientists respecting the actual data. They choose alarmism rather than to properly consider the facts as they are.

“It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker [editor note: an alleged hacker although it could may well have been an internal whistle-blower with integrity and a conscience to clear – pwl] from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging (1). I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.

Yes, the messages were obtained illegally [editor note: that has yet to be determined in a court of law -pwl]. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released (2,3), and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request (4).

Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics (5,6), or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (7). I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.” – George Monbiot, Humann Caused Global Warming Alarmist Science Writer and Activist, published in the Guardian, 23rd November 2009

Unfortunately I concur with Jerry Pournelle’s assessment and with the above portion of George Monboit’s comments. This is a very sad episode in the annals of science.

UPDATE 20091128: Now even members of the IPCC itself are calling to BAN these alleged Climategate science criminals from the IPCC! WOW!

Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process.
Eduardo Zorita, November 2009

Short answer: because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore.

A longer answer: My voice is not very important. I belong to the climate-research infantry, publishing a few papers per year, reviewing a few manuscript per year and participating in a few research projects. I do not form part of important committees, nor I pursue a public awareness of my activities. My very minor task in the public arena was to participate as a contributing author in the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC.

By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication. [Editor’s Note: Fear of reprisals from the Climategate criminals voiced in public! A paradigm shift has occurred!] My area of research happens to be the climate of the past millennia, where I think I am appreciated by other climate-research ‘soldiers’. And it happens that some of my mail exchange with Keith Briffa and Timothy Osborn can be found in the CRU-files made public recently on the internet.

I may confirm what has been written in other places: research in some areas of climate science has been and is full of machination, conspiracies, and collusion, as any reader can interpret from the CRU-files.The scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas.

I am also aware that in this thick atmosphere -and I am not speaking of greenhouse gases now- editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations,even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. In this atmosphere, Ph D students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the ‘politically correct picture’. Some, or many issues, about climate change are still not well known. Policy makers should be aware of the attempts to hide these uncertainties under a unified picture. I had the ‘pleasure’ to experience all this in my area of research.

… I feel myself entitled to read how some researchers tried to influence reviewers to scupper the publication of our work on the ‘hockey stick graph’ or to read how some IPCC authors tried to exclude this work from the IPCC Report on very dubious reasons. … They are an account of many dull daily activities of typical climatologists, together with a realistic account of very troubling professional behavior.

How long will it be before the resignations begin?

Phil Jones and Micheal E. Mann indite themselves in these emails. Here is one egregious sample. See the references below for the raw email files and read them for yourself.

“From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann
Subject: IPCC & FOI:04:11 2008
Date: Thu May 29 11
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise.
He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t
have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!


“AR4” referrers to the fourth UN IPCC Climate Assessment Report.

“According to Hazel Moffatt, a partner in the litigation and regulatory department at the law firm DLA Piper in London, deleting emails subject to a FOI request is a criminal offense in the United Kingdom, punishable with a fine. “It’s quite naughty to do that,” said Ms. Moffatt.” – As Serious As Crime.

The Climate Research Unit released a couple of press releases here and here to cover their asses in the Pernicious Climategate Scandal that is rocking their tidy deceptive world. Nice try but you fail. The very serious allegations against your group are shocking and invalidate and bring into disrepute all of your works and all works based upon your works.

As a result of the Climategate allegations in the CRU Files FOI 2009 Philip D. Jones, Michael E. Mann, et. al. (Gavin Schmidt, Keith Briffa, Eugene Wahl, Caspar Ammann, Stephen H Schneider, Myles Allen, Peter Stott, Benjamin Santer, Tom Wigley, Thomas R Karl, James Hansen, Michael Oppenheimer, Eystein Jansen, Tim Osborn, …) how about your resignation today
(1) for Scientific Fraud, and
(2) for using aggressive and unethical Politics to interfere with the independent scientific work of others in the climate science field, and
(3) for messing with scientific journals, and
(4) for stacking the decks of the peer review process for your selected friends, and
(5) for leading and waging a smear campaign against anyone with a dissenting point of view, and
(6) for being juvenile, vindictive, mocking and outright nasty to your fellow scientists who might dissent from your point of view, and
(7) for data “mannipulation” to further your career, and
(8) for suggesting the crime of deleting data to prevent it’s publication, and
(9) for treating concerned members of the public with derisiveness and childish behaviors, and
(10) for soothsaying tree entrails when you knowingly knew they are unreliable, and
(…) and,
(N) the list goes on, where N is a very large number due to the Climategate revelations in the CRU Files 2009 FOI.

Phil Jones and Michael Mann, et. al., if the tactics you’ve employed (given the alleged Climategate evidence) are any indication of the “quality” and level of “integrity” of your science then there isn’t any place for you in science. Now all of your papers and all the papers that they are based upon are suspect and must be peer reviewed again this time by people outside of your cabal of insiders trading peer review favors, and preferably opened for public scrutiny and auditing with all the data, data and statistical mannipulation, full program source codes and user inputs entered into said programs, all notes and emails in any way related, all early drafts and discarded edits, and all assumptions and other steps of processing FULLY documented. In other words proper verifiable and repeatable peer and public review.

This 2006 paper by Rand and Wilensky of Northwestern University: Verification and Validation through Replication: A Case Study Using Axelrod and Hammond’s Ethnocentrism Model (PDF) illustrates clearly the need for replication when it comes to models, something climate science is lacking in when the data and code is not made available to independent researchers. They write:

Recent years have seen a proliferation of agent-based models (ABMs), but with the exception of a few “classic” models, most of these models have never been replicated. We argue that replication has even greater benefits when applied to computational models than when applied to physical experiments.

One of the foundational components of the scientific method is the idea of reproducibility (Popper 1959). In order for an experiment to be considered valid it must be replicated. This process begins with the scientists who originally performed the experiment publishing the details of the experiment. This description of the experiment is then read by another group of scientists who carry out the experiment, and ascertain whether the results of the new experiment are similar to the original experiment. If the results are similar enough then the experiment has been replicated. This process validates the fact that the experiment was not dependent on local conditions, and that the written description of the experiment satisfactorily records the knowledge gained through the experiment.

CRU’s decision to withhold data and code from public inspection is not only against the scientific method, given the impact their work has on governmental policies and taxpayer funded programs, it is, in my opinion, unethical.Anthony Watts

Clearly any scientist who stacks the deck in the peer review process is afraid of what might happen to their, ahem, science if it’s put into the hands of other scientists whom they don’t control.

Science is supposed to stand on it’s own with the chips falling where they may with Nature (the mother not the magazine) being the final judge of which science results prevail and which are tossed into the dust bins of history.

Unfortunately Phil Jones and Michael Mann et. al. the alleged Climategate evidence clearly shows you’ve failed as professional scientists since you choose to play the unethical games revealed in your now public emails.

Shame on you. Shame. Resign. Face the consequences of your unethical actions.

2. 1219239172.txt
3. 1107454306.txt
4. 1212063122.txt
5. 1051190249.txt
6. 1106322460.txt
7. 1089318616.txt

Players (alleged climate scientists) on the Dark Side of the Forcings. ALL their papers and works are now suspect due to their varying roles in Climategate, as the evidence allegedly shows.

Darth “Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) and one of the world’s leading climate scientists.”
Phil Jones at Wikipedia.
Phil Jones’s suspect papers, Google Scholar search.
Phil Jones Climategate Google search.
Phil in the East Anglia Emails.
Jones in the East Anglia Emails.

Darth “Michael Mann, director of the Pennsylvania State University’s Earth System Science Center.”
Michael Mann at Wikipedia.
Michael Mann’s suspect papers, Google Scholar search.
Michael Mann Climategate Google search.
Michael in the East Anglia Emails.
Mike in the East Anglia Emails.
Mann in the East Anglia Emails.

Darth “Gavin Schmidt of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.”
Gavin Schmidt at Wikipedia.
Gavin Schmidt’s suspect papers, Google Scholar search.
Gavin Schmidt Climategate Google search
Gavin in the East Anglia Emails.
Schmidt in the East Anglia Emails.

Darth “Caspar Ammann of the National Center for Atmospheric Research’s Climate and Global Dynamics Division.”
Caspar Ammann’s suspect papers, Google Scholar search.
Caspar Ammann Climategate Google search
Caspar in the East Anglia Emails.
Ammannin the East Anglia Emails.

Darth Eugene Wahl, NOAA National Climatic Data Center.
Suspect papers, Google Scholar search.
Eugene Wahl Climategate Google search
Eugene in the East Anglia Emails.
Wahl the East Anglia Emails.

Players on the Light side of the Force auditing the work of the above alleged scientists.

Jedi “Stephen McIntyre and” Jedi “Ross McKitrick, two Canadians who have devoted years to seeking the raw data and codes used in climate graphs and models, then fact-checking the published conclusions—a painstaking task that strikes us as a public and scientific service.”
Stephen McIntyre at Wikipedia.
Stephen MacIntyre papers, Google Scholar search.
MacIntyre in the East Anglia Emails.
Ross McKitrick at Wikipedia.
Ross McKitrick’s papers, Google Scholar search.
McKitrick the East Anglia Emails.
MM (MacIntyre and McKitrick) in the East Anglia Emails.

Quotes from WSJ.

It seems that if tree ring data wasn’t “good” after ~1960 then why was it good before then? Sounds like something isn’t “reliable” about tree ring data as a temperature proxy. Sounds like Phil Jones and his teams are reading a wee too much soothsaying from their tree ring entrails. How about some actual factual science and a lot less (i.e. none) magic in your papers oh Nostradamus wanna be Phil Jones? How about your resignations Phil Jones and Michael Mann et. al.?

In the following video “Stuart Varney interviews scientist Pat Michaels, with the CATO institute, who was the target of physical threat from Climate Scientist Ben Sanders. He also DESTROYS Ben Weiss, from the Center for American Progress.” It’s interesting that the quotes that Ben Weiss brings out are all based upon the works – now in disrepute – of the Climategate science criminals and as such are highly dubious at best. If there is a mountain of scientific evidence Ben Weiss sure isn’t speaking any of it.

“Isn’t it strange that the same people that laugh at gypsy fortune tellers take economists [and climate forecasters] seriously?”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: