Subscription Center
An academic inquiry cleared climate scientist Michael Mann of any academic misconduct arising from leaked e-mails
See what we're tweeting about
dbiello coal's baaaaaack http://t.co/J5VcoaGRfp the shale gale does not blow constant... dbiello the prediction is for an active atlantic hurricane season says @noaa http://t.co/UILAH3oOCi #nowhammiesnowhammies
PsiWavefunction The best of both worlds: leaves and critters are out, and you can watch while cuddling in a blanket w a hot cup of tea =)
Deadline: Jul 25 2013
Reward: Varies
This challenge provides an opportunity for Solvers to build a web-based or mobile “app” to explore data relationships in scholarly conte
Deadline: Aug 31 2013
Reward: $100,000 USD
The Geoffrey Beene Foundation Alzheimer’s Initiative (GBFAI) is launching the 2013 Geoffrey Beene Global NeuroDiscovery Challenge whose
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
22 Comments
Add Comment$765 million? I'd clear him in a heartbeat too while refusing to hand over anything to the AG.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBig surprise that it was Joe "I apologize for making BP pay for causing a huge disaster" Barton was behind the attack on the 'hockey stick' graph...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's been amply demonstrated that Mann isn't a wild-eyed maniac nor total f-up, so admit it and move on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, read up on Ken Cuccinelli and you'll quickly see that he's a ultraconservative who routinely abuses the power of his office to go on crusades.
"$765 million? I'd clear him in a heartbeat too while refusing to hand over anything to the AG."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReading comprehension fail. Try reading those sentences again.
"The university, Powers added, receives $765 million annually in research money. "We would not put our reputation at risk over a single researcher. Our expectations are very high."
It is those stupid anti-environmental Republicans; they're at it again. The Republicans are America's biggest losers and they will go to any extreme to try and make the American people believe that President Obama is as big a loser as Bush. Republicans, when it comes election time, the smart people will not forget what you are doing. Not all of us have your convenient memory loss or have been dumbed down to the Neanderthal level by the Bush administration.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe bottom line of course is whether anthropogenic global warming is truly the cause of the recent global warming, and whether that warming is truly continuing or not in recent years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would suggest that these issues are still extremely wide open. I would also promise that if left wingers try to makeover their battle cry to "anthropogenic climate change" they will be venturing onto treacherous ground. Even the scientifically clueless American public will balk at the claim that the tailpipes of their personal vehicles are now according to official science proven to be causing global cooling.
My wife just returned from a road trip to our home state of Montana, which was 98 degrees F. in places but much greener than she has ever seen it. Don't sell Montana wheat short on the idea that drought is a problem this year.
When will it be safe to grow oranges in Florida? Why is NW China becoming so cold and dry? Why is Europe getting colder and the glacier on Mt. Blanc growing?
Glaciers in really cold places like Antarctica actually tend to dessicate away because there is so little snow to replace ice that basically evaporates into the bone dry atmosphere. Some glaciers actually need a warmer, wetter climate to provide adequate snow to grow them.
@ Mike Cook,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The bottom line of course is whether anthropogenic global warming is truly the cause of the recent global warming, and whether that warming is truly continuing or not in recent years."
Yes and Yes to both questions. Your willful ignorance of the evidence does not make reality go away.
"I would suggest that these issues are still extremely wide open."
Only to a ideologue hell bent on ignoring the evidence.
"Even the scientifically clueless American public will balk at the claim that the tailpipes of their personal vehicles are now according to official science proven to be causing global cooling."
You are making less and less sense as this post goes on.
"My wife just returned from a road trip to our home state of Montana, which was 98 degrees F. in places but much greener than she has ever seen it. Don't sell Montana wheat short on the idea that drought is a problem this year."
Why do you think that the scenery of view of Montana from a road trip qualifies your wife to be a global agronomist?
"When will it be safe to grow oranges in Florida?"
What?
"Why is NW China becoming so cold and dry?"
I see that you have never heard of the Gobi Desert. Why am I not surprised?
"Glaciers in really cold places like Antarctica actually tend to dessicate away because there is so little snow to replace ice that basically evaporates into the bone dry atmosphere. Some glaciers actually need a warmer, wetter climate to provide adequate snow to grow them."
Have you ever heard of a ice sheet?
Trent1492 at 11:51 AM on 07/02/10
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnly the opinions that agree with yours are right and all others must be wrong.
Dr. Goebbels was an expert in the same field as yourself. He was very convincing and millions of Germans believed him. However his message was a load of male bovine excretion.
@Elderybloke,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Only the opinions that agree with yours are right and all others must be wrong.Dr. Goebbels was an expert in the same field as yourself. He was very convincing and millions of Germans believed him. However his message was a load of male bovine excretion."
And Mr. Geriatric once again commits a Goodwin.
Anyhow, Trent1492, my wife says Montana got a heck of a lot of rain this year and I believe her. I also believe the climate scientists of India, who say that the glaciers on their side of the Himalayas are not melting away.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the China side of the Himalayas pro-AGW researchers are claiming that the glaciers are melting away, but that this results in LESS water in the rivers that China depends on? That makes my brain hurt if it is true.
After actually reading the emails that were leaked, I am unconvinced that Mann was an active participant in academic miss deeds. However, from an examination of the "novel" statistical methods used by Mann to justify the validity of his hockey-stick graph, his work seems to require an enormous leap of faith to be believed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Mike Cook,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Anyhow, Trent1492, my wife says Montana got a heck of a lot of rain this year and I believe her."
I am afraid that you are operating under a couple of delusions:
You seem to be under the impression that your wife's road trips are a substitute for measurable results.
You forget it is called Global Warming not Montana Warming
Climate Change does not mean the same thing for all over the globe. You really should read what is being said by the scientist and not the fossil fuel industry shills.
It is the TREND that matters. You repeatedly make the same mistake over and over that a single data point in a locality somehow refutes a global TREND. When will you grasp this point?
"I also believe the climate scientists of India, who say that the glaciers on their side of the Himalayas are not melting away."
No, what you believe is what is being feed to you by the fossil fuel industry.
Here is what the measurements are saying:
http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/
Notice that 93% of of the monitored glaciers are reporting a loss of mass balance. Notice that we are talking about a TREND has been on going for DECADES.
@Wermet,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou seem unaware that Mann's Hockey Stick has been reproduced using different techniques and proxies about a dozen times now.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ipcc2007/fig6-10b.png
It seems that no amount of evidence for AGW, or repeated exonerations of the falsely accused scientists will ever change the opinions of some.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYES! Awesome! Thanks for saying it for me!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAwesome! My thoughts exactly!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissupertexan,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"... We all looked at the evidence ourselves and these twerps just tell us not to believe our lying eyes ..."
The investigators had access to, and took advantage of evidece we did not have.
Calling the investigators "twerps" shows that you have already decided what the outcome should be, regardless of what additional evidence indicates is correct.
as to "... our lying eyes ...", well that speaks for itself.
supertexan,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI may not have expressed myself well.
You, I and the rest of the public were presented with a small, selected fraction of the email messages from the hacked server. As you are aware, the smaller the sample size, the less likely the sample is to be representative of the whole.
"... All they did was declare that they investigated and it didn't happen. You know that."
In re the announcement that the investigation cleared Mann, the investigation did not just say that he was innocent and left it at that. The full report, should you be interested enough to read it, may be found here: http://www.research.psu.edu/news/2010/michael-mann-decision
As the investigators had access to data (evidence) to which you, I and the rest of the public did not have access, I am a bit surprised that there remains a presumption of Mann's guilt until proven otherwise.
If I may be so bold, of what specifically do you believe Mann is guilty, and what evidence / what emails are you basing your judgment?
I've no real recollection of what you are replying to there Chryses. Once again, Scientific American deletes my little post. I'm sure the higher-ups at SA don't give a rat's butt about the comments here so all I can figure is we've got one overzealous little warm monger intern deleting comments on this board. Nice work thee comment deleter boy, you make a good representative of the global warm monger movement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissupertexan,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I've no real recollection of what you are replying to there Chryses. Once again, Scientific American deletes my little post. I'm sure the higher-ups at SA don't give a rat's butt about the comments here so all I can figure is we've got one overzealous little warm monger intern deleting comments on this board. Nice work thee comment deleter boy, you make a good representative of the global warm monger movement."
My condolences sir. Nothing you posted warranted being deleted.
Irresponsible, gratuitous editorial deletions only serve to confirm the suspicions of many that those who are persuaded that AGW is real are trying very hard to hide the facts that do not fit their theories.
So sad.
You're all right Chryses, even if you are all wrong on this global warming thing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissupertexan,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRousseau, the French philosopher and champion of liberty was hunted and pursued from one place to another because of his opinions. When Voltaire, another philosopher and writer heard of it, he invited Rousseau to come and live in his house. When Rousseau finally arrived, Voltaire said, "I do not agree with a word you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it".