DeSmogblog Fail with Pop Gun Character Assassination Ploy

Big Green’s Canadian web warriors, DeSmogblog promote “faked” online evidence to smear global warming legal analyst. The move is seen as retaliation after a slew of adroit articles compare and discredit separate Penn. State investigations into university employees Jerry Sandusky and Michael Mann.

BeSmirchblog.com trying hardest to cloud climate science

DeSmogblog writers Demelle and Littlemore jump the shark with their article ‘Affidavits in Michael Mann Libel Suit Reveal Astonishing Facts About Tim Ball Associate John O’Sullivan’ (July 26, 2012). The piece claims to have “facts” undermining the integrity of this author.* Upon examination the supposed “facts” prove to be naught but rehashed hearsay claims dismissed last year by an investigation of the Law Society of British Columbia. Disgraced former journalist Andrew Skolnick submitted the affidavits to the very same court where prominent skeptic climate researcher, Dr. Tim Ball is defending a libel suit against Dr. Michael Mann. Professor Mann is Director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University (PSU) and has proved a successful promoter of the lucrative billion-dollar business of global climate alarmism. Skolnick’s affidavits add not one iota of actual evidence dispositive of accusations that Mann perpetrated a fraud.

The piece from the David Suzuki-backed attack dogs is easily exposed as a bait and switch ploy. It’s purpose: to distract attention from the real issue of the failing Vancouver lawsuit of the alleged Climategate fraudster whose history is being indelibly entwined with that of convicted pedophile, Jerry Sandusky. Both men were the subjects of internal investigations by their PSU employers that critics say were “whitewashed.”  The supposed reason being that the university wanted to protect the  income stream and kudos associated with these high-profile characters. I’m betting it’s no coincidence that Mann fans Demelle and Littlemore worked up a sweat when they read my articles about their hero here, here and here.

Litigious Mann Threatens Ever More Libel Suits

When one of his Facebook cronies gave Mann a link to my last article Mann’s swift reply was: “This has been sent to the legal team at Cozen O’Connor.” But I’m in good company – last week Mann and his Big Oil lawyers were making similar SLAAP lawsuit threats against Mark Steyn and the National Review.

The back-story is that Michael Mann has been pursuing a vexatious libel claim in the British Columbia Supreme Court for more than a year against popular Canadian climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball. Ball had quipped that Mann – a prominent public figure advocating reductions in human emissions of carbon dioxide – belongs “in the state pen., not Penn. State.” Mann’s advocacy has influenced policymakers to seek draconian restrictions on western industries.

Ball’s analysis of Mann’s discredited “hockey-stick” graph (the universal icon for green climate activism) is highly critical of Mann’s unethical cherry picking of evidence and withholding of key metadata for his graph. Prominent statisticians have already proven that Mann’s methodology was flawed. But an objective analysis of his hidden metadata could establish beyond doubt whether such flaws were intentionally perpetrated as part of a criminal fraud.

In light of the Sandusky conviction hindsight is telling Mann his suing Ball in Vancouver was a huge miscalculation not least because Canadians have fallen out of the love with David Suzuki’s “green revolution.” While Americans are seeing the recent Freeh report affirming the existence of an insidious culture at Penn. State that predisposes the hierarchy to subvert evidence of criminality committed by apex employees. Since the report’s publication Mann is hearing his name spoken so often in the same breath as Sandusky’s that the perturbed professor is throwing hissyfits threatening more libel suits. An unmistakable stench of malfeasance is triggering calls for a fresh, independent investigation into this “Mann-made” global warming science. Like other analysts, I believe public policy considerations alone merit such a thorough probe.

North of the 49^th Parallel DeSmog’s hapless hero is reeling as he sees his cozy climate coterie crumple under the stark glare of an objective legal light. The culture shock of being in that British Columbia courtroom is certainly proving a far cry from the darker recesses of Mann’s university safe haven. Ball’s compulsory disclosure demands for Mann to hand over his “dirty laundry” – the hidden metadata for his graph – won’t go away. The more Mann prevaricates the more suspicion grows that he and his university employers dishonestly secured the spoils of $2 million in U.S. federal research grants.

Thus the Demelle and Littlemore distraction story is a straw-clutching exercise to trumpet unfounded and refuted allegations that I made numerous misrepresentations over academic and professional credentials. The most serious of the slurs is that I falsely obtained monies masquerading as a licensed attorney – a criminal offense. However, the Law Society of British Columbia (LSBC) investigated the matter and found no proof of wrongdoing. Indeed, if the LSBC had found even a jot of evidence they are duty bound to inform the police. [1.]

Curiously, Andrew Skolnick, the source of the slurs against me, was fired from his employment as associate news editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association. Exposed as a liar and his career in tatters Skolnick now ekes out a living in New York as a pet photographer. Earlier this year his shenanigans culminated in the hasty take down of several discussion threads on the Climate Etc. website. Blog owner, Dr. Judith Curry, sagely removed offending sections of her blog when it was found they were infected with Skolnick’s libelous commentary. Then last week  the recalcitrant rascal was also banned from the Science Writers’ Forum of LinkedIn for posting similarly malicious and offensive slurs against other folk. Rumors are he’s banned from any further activities as a Wikipedia editor as well.

Hearsay Affidavits Not Admissible in Canada

But these are admirable traits among those connected with the David Suzuki-backed DeSmogblog website. The ineptitude and hypocrisy of Demelle and Littlemore is amusingly exposed by D&L’s poor grasp of the “facts.” The pair have already apologized to readers for having to amend their flawed article post-publication. So much for Dumber & Lamer’s jibe about me being “highly prone to error.” But then DeSmogblog doesn’t seem to care that it’s perceived as a joke and the unprincipled sock puppet for discredited extremists in the Canadian green movement.

But the DeSmogblog’s non-story comes at a moment when truth and transparency appear to be coming back into fashion among the political class – at least in Britain. The House of Commons Justice Committee is learning lessons from Climategate and has now published a post-legislative review favoring toughening up of freedom of information laws. Not good news for Mendacious Mike and his hockey-stickers!

Certainly, what’s been written about me is worthless and easily discredited in a legal context. Not just because of the flaws cited above but because – as per the rules of hearsay and “unclean hands” – those Skolnick affadavits are inadmissible under the Canada Evidence Act.

To reiterate previous public statements: I have called Skolnick out as a fraud and a liar but he hasn’t followed up on his threat to sue me for libel. Thus we can safely say Demelle and Littlemore’s article is mere grandstanding built on fluff to distract from the real issue at hand: Mann’s impending demise in the science trial of the century.

[1.] Pursuant to the LSBC investigation proof was submitted of my academic and professional qualifications.

*Update (August o1, 2012):

The New York County Lawyers Association has formally notified Demelle (and Huffington Post who also ran the story) that what they have published is a misrepresentation. However, the defamatory story remains unaltered and no apology has been issued by Huffington Post or Demelle.

Frankly, this validates my belief that Demelle and Huffington Post are in the business of publishing their lies to serve a pro-green media agenda. This is to distract from the real story: the alleged criminal fraud of Michael Mann and his accomplices at Penn. State University.

New SLAPPstick Courtroom Capers as Michael Mann Falls Foul Again

Media war of words erupts in anticipation of another global warming courtroom battle. We take time to see how latest events connected to Climategate’s controversial scientist Michael Mann stack up alongside Mann’s legal shoot out versus Dr. Tim Ball.

Last week Pennsylvania State University (PSU) popped back up on the notoriety radar thanks to lingering fallout over their jailed child sex felon, football coach Jerry Sandusky. PSU’s other alleged  bad boy, climatologist Michael Mann, came out with all legal guns blazing after popular right-wing writer, Mark Steyn and the National Review wrote of the parallels in the “whitewashes” PSU investigations performed separately on Sandusky and Mann. The recent and hard-hitting Freeh Report is damning of PSU’s hierarchy.

With talk of more lawsuits flying, observers are now wondering how an earlier Michael Mann face off with Tim Ball is shaping up one year on. Readers may recall that Ball’s whimsy that Mann belongs in “the State Pen., not Penn. State” triggered the first of what now may become a series of desperate SLAPP lawsuits.

You might imagine plenty must have transpired by now up there in the British Columbia Supreme Court. But you would be wrong. Mann’s zeal for pressing home his action against his fellow climatologist appears to have waned. Some observers are even of the opinion that Mann is delaying the inevitable until Ball slaps one home between the pipes.

Today – despite being duly served with legal notices – Steyn and the National Review are taking a leaf from Ball’s book and not caving over their “Football and Hockey” article. Steyn has a reputation for being a tough enforcer capable of lighting the lamp in any SLAPP face off. So is Mann skating on thin ice with more time wasting dangles and dekes?

Steyn and others will no doubt take note of how Mann’s prevarications over Ball suggest he has finally realized he’s dug himself a humungous hole. I’m one of many who believes the Mann-v- Ball case will turn out to be a watershed moment for Mann. It’s most likely he will be compelled by the court to disclose his “dirty laundry” (as Mann, himself, refers to his hidden data in his Climategate email). If the hidden numbers are as bad as skeptics suggest then none of his friends in high places can save him.

So Steyn should take with a pinch of salt the “warning shot” from Mann’s lawyer claiming that a slew of official investigations “cleared” Mann of any wrongdoing in the 2009 Climategate scandal. Such claims are not what they seem.

Andrew Montford (read his ‘Caspar and Jesus’ paper)  is one such expert who deftly explains that those (non-judicial) “Climategate” inquiries fell well short of robust exoneration. This is because they all skirted around the unscientific behavior concerning Mann’s key hidden data. Unfortunately, for Mann he has made himself the plaintiff in this Canadian libel suit and cannot now duck the issue.

In the B.C. Supreme Court Ball’s attorney, Michael Scherr, has a clear run to perfectly demonstrate how climate “scientists” have been (and still are) withholding data that would help to resolve the climate controversy; we may say unscientific behavior, because hiding data makes it difficult or impossible for independent scientists/statisticians to replicate the claimed results.

As we know, Mann’s “dirty laundry” is the withheld r-squared correlation coefficient numbers for the “hockey stick” graph which McIntyre, Wegman, Cuccinelli and others have been desperate to see publicly examined but which Mann (and his university employers) have always kept under wraps. It’s not just the key evidence, but also Mann’s days that are numbered. This is because, as plaintiff in the action, Mann picked the worst possible jurisdiction to do legal battle over his “hockey stick” graph. This is for two key reasons:

(1.) The “Truth Defense” to Libel

Canadian courts offer the defendant in a libel lawsuit the unique opportunity to pursue the “truth defense.“ Ball has sagely opted to pursue that path rather than, for example, the “fair comment” defense. This is because the “truth defense” places a higher – more onerous – evidential burden on the parties. This means any and all evidence demanded by either party in the ongoing discovery process must be revealed. So effective can the “truth defense” be that some cynics refer to it as the “scorched earth” defense.

(2.) “Spoliation”: The Intentional Withholding/Destruction of Evidence

Since 2008 we can give thanks that Canada has beefed up it’s due process laws to punish litigants that intentionally withhold or destroy evidence (e.g. see McDougall v. Black & Decker Canada Inc.,[1.]). This means that Mann’s lawyer, Roger McConchie, cannot persist in indefinitely stalling over compliance with Ball’s motion to hand over those “hockey stick” r-squared correlation coefficient numbers.

Purposely prevaricating and failing to comply with this disclosure demand renders this omission to act a willful contempt of court (“intentional spoliation”) with serious repercussions. As such, due process rules entitle Ball to file a motion demanding the imposition of [a] punitive sanction[s]. Note: this is not discretionary but mandatory upon the court.

Such sanction[s] may include summary dismissal of Mann’s case with prejudice or, in the alternative; the court may grant what is termed an adverse inference jury instruction. This is a binding direction on jurors that they must find that Mann “intentionally spoliated” the evidence of the r-squared correlation coefficient numbers (i.e. with a sense of guilt Mann unlawfully withheld/destroyed his metadata).

(3.) A Legal Analysis

Be advised that as of July last year I have not assisted Dr. Ball in any way in this case so my opinion should not be construed as necessarily the same as his or his counsel’s – and we’ve had no discussions on the matter since. But to my mind neither of the above outcomes bodes well for Mann in other jurisdictions with regard to any possible subsequent legal proceedings. Firstly, this is because dismissal with prejudice will destroy what little remains of Mann’s credibility – even though he may get to keep his numbers hidden; while the second outcome sets a compelling and unequivocal international legal precedent  in other common law jurisdictions (i.e. U.S., U.K. Australia, N.Z). For example, a prosecutor in Virginia may then apply any such a Mann-v-Ball Canadian judgment as proof of Mann’s guilt to conspire to commit climate data fraud.

My guess is that Mann will go with the first option and let Ball win the libel suit without having to disclose the “dirty laundry.” But this outcome may only serve to buy Mann a little more time. But that’s probably the best he can do hereon in.

(4.) Case Background

Michael Mann apologists appear not to understand the issue. A brief summary of the historical background is thus helpful. Mann’s hockey stick graph first appeared to worldwide fanfare in 2001 when it became the battle flag for global warming crusaders of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It’s a 1,000-year  proxy (tree ring) reconstruction of past climates (proxies are used because thermometer records only go back 150 years). The controversy over Mann’s hockey stick graph is less a climatology question, but more an issue of plain, black and white statistical analysis. Thus any claim that only climatologists are “qualified” to weigh the matter is bogus. JoNova has an excellent article addressing the basics here.

Mann’s tree-ring proxy graph purported to prove modern temperatures were dangerously warmer than previous eras. Mann’s number-crunching had somehow managed to do away with the balmy Medieval Warm Period (WMP). Bizarrely, the IPCC immediately bought into Mann’s graph and quietly dropped their original version from 1995 with no explanation whatsoever.

IPCC Presentation of the Medieval Warm Period from their 1995 Report

Unusually, Mann refused to disclose key calculations for his flat-handled, uptick-bladed graph thus blocking independent scientists from fully checking their reliability. However, it wasn’t long before Michael Mann’s published work was falsified by McIntyre & McKittrick. McIntyre also destroyed Mann08, in which Mann used the Tiljander proxy – known to be corrupted [2.]

IPCC Replacement Presentation – Mann’s Version of the MWP (2001)

Retired Canadian statistician, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, an economics professor at the University of Guelph (M&M) thus came to the fore as the key critics of Mann’s methodology. Together they uncovered fatal flaws in both Mann’s statistical analysis and data interpretation. In 2005 this led M&M to publish a paper explaining the problems in Geophysical Research Letters. What was proven was that Mann’s methodology would generate a hockey stick regardless of almost any data input. This was because Mann numbers had been generating “spectral noise,” One satirist, “Iowahawk” provided a primer on how to create a hockey stick at home, using a standard spreadsheet program.

Defenders of Mann claim that even if there are problems with his method or data set independent results from other researchers back him up. But as Andrew Montford’s ‘Caspar and Jesus’ study demonstrates, those third party statistical efforts to vindicate Mann actually raise more questions than they answer. But so much focus has been on Mann that a fellow Climategate co-conspirator, Keith Briffa has managed to evade the same level of scrutiny. But McIntyre showed Briffa was no less culpable.

Briffa had claimed to have independent Eurasian tree-ring analysis that confirmed Mann’s results. But what he offered from the Polar Urals and Eurasian data from Yamal led to even greater suspicion because leaked Climategate emails proved Briffa’s claims about these were unreliable. Emails proved Briffa had been telling one story in public but another privately. Further McIntyre examinations proved that Briffa’s Polar Urals update would not show a hockey stick shape graph at all.

A British criminal prosecution over Climategate was only averted because of a technicality –  the incredibly short six-month  statute of limitations. The British Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) confirmed that the UK’s University of East Anglia at the center of Climategate scandal had indeed  unlawfully withheld and/or destroyed data.

Absent a full release of all the evidence (which governments and university authorities appear not to want) the evidence in the public domain points to a clique of climatologists conspiring to cherry-pick tree ring data. It appears their purpose was to be bolster “evidence” for their belief of unprecedented warmth in our modern era due to human emissions of carbon dioxide.

Briffa and others secretly accepted that the data from modern tree ring analysis showed a poor match with temperatures. So if there is poor reliability when compared with modern temperatures it is reasonable to infer that conclusions drawn from them before the pre-thermometer era may also be unreliable.

Conclusion

So what does this all mean? Well, firstly, is that there is no persuasive proxy evidence from trees to substantiate Mann’s hockey stick graph – more precisely – there is no blade to Mann’s stick and the hump-backed MWP of the IPCC’s 1995 graph should be re-instated. For certain, bristlecone pines and larches are also not accurate thermometers. But crucially, climatologists who persist in hiding their statistical data from independent review should no longer be given the benefit of the doubt and their findings should be treated with extreme caution.

If the British Columbia Supreme Court rules against Michael Mann and in favor of Tim Ball then there is a strong likelihood that Mann’s conduct in the tree ring controversy was malevolent. As such, it becomes increasingly likely he and others will face criminal investigation.

[1.] McDougall v. Black & Decker Canada, Inc.; 2008 ABCA 353; October 2008

[2.] McIntyre, S., McKitrick, The M&M Project: Replication Analysis of the Mann et al. Hockey Stick; (accessed online: July 25, 2012)

Breaking: Climate Scientist Michael Mann Lawyers Up after Penn State Child Sex Link

American climatologist with link to university pedophile, lawyers up yet again to sue a prominent critic of his discredited data. Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University today (July 21, 2012) announced his intention to pursue legal action against The National Review Online (NRO) and popular right-wing writer, Mark Steyn over their article ‘Football and Hockey.’

On his Facebook page an irate Mann proclaims, “I have formally demanded a retraction of, and apology for, this defamatory piece about me by National Review. I have retained counsel to pursue my legal rights.” Mann’s attorney, John B Williams of Cozen & O’Connor (Washington D.C.) asserts on the first page of his “take down” notice that NRO “know” that there is “no evidence of any academic fraud” by Mann. Page Two of the notice lists those whitewash official investigations that cleared Mann. However, Williams appears unaware that the official  investigations did not examine Mann’s still hidden “dirty laundry” – his metadata –  nor did they address  other adverse evidence or interview witnesses against Mann.

“Fair Comment” Rule Applies for Media Reporting

Independent lawyers who have examined the article believe it is not libelous because it merely expresses Styen’s opinion on another commentary by Rand Simberg from the OpenMarket.org website. Steyn can be seen to have fairly quoted Simberg and then declares his own belief that he wouldn’t have gone as far as Simberg’s comments. Steyn then concludes his piece by merely asking the question: “If an institution is prepared to cover up systemic statutory rape of minors, what won’t it cover up?”

The Steyn article is one of many following in the wake of the publication last week of the damning report of former FBI Director Judge Freeh into PSU’s appalling conduct during the Sandusky scandal. My legal analysis on the damning report identifies stark similarities in the way PSU appeared to cover up for both Sandusky and for Mann in their respective internal investigations.

Ineptly, Mann has drawn further attention to the Steyn article by inserting a link to it. Thus millions of web users can apprise themselves of why there is a groundswell of opinion that Mann’s employers, Pennsylvania State University (PSU) may well have covered up Mann’s crimes in the Climategate scandal – just as the Freeh Report suggests they did for PSU football coach Jerry Sandusky.

The world’s leading science blog, WUWT was quick to see the irony in Mann’s blunder in linking Steyn’s article to his Facebook announcement. WUWT owner, Anthony Watts observes that Mann had made himself a victim of the “Streisand Effect” – primarily an online phenomenon in which an attempt to hide or remove a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely.

Mann Losing Confidence in his Canadian Legal Team?

In this instance, Mann is doing without the expensive Canadian libel expert, Roger McConchie who Mann has been using to pursue a separate libel claim against popular Canadian climate scientist, Dr. Tim Ball. That case isn’t going well for Mann because he appears to be stalling about complying with a court motion to hand over his hidden “dirty laundry” metadata to courtroom scrutiny. The British Columbia Supreme Court, where the case is currently being heard,  has the right to order Mann to reveal all such withheld data. If Mann persists in failing to comply the court may find him in contempt and dismiss his case and award substantial damages in favor of Ball.

Just so that Mann can be clear that it is fair and reasonable for reporters and commentators to reasonably apply the Freeh Report findings and demand a re-opening of the PSU investigation into Mann, I posted my own message to Mike on his Facebook page:

“Hi Mike,

Absent full courtroom examination of your “dirty laundry” (that hockey stick metadata you keep hidden) which I anticipate in due course, I believe your intentional withholding of the r-squared cross-validation results for the HS constitutes an act of intentional deception – and thus criminal fraud.

I understand your reconstruction method works by lining up the tree ring data with measured temperatures in the 20th century to calibrate the scale, and then assuming that the relationship with temperature holds for all the rest of the tree ring data. Because this process automatically gives a match in the calibration period, whether the tree ring-temperature relationship is real or not, it can’t be assumed that the reconstruction method is really outputting temperature, so it’s normal to withhold part of the measured temperature data from calibration and check to see if it matches the reconstruction asking – does the method give the right answer?

Experts in these matters advise me you then calculated the match, using a statistical method called the r-squared correlation coefficient, but found that over most of the reconstruction there was essentially no match. We know you calculated it because you gave r-squared results for the one part of the data where there was a weak match, and because it was in the code you eventually had to publish (and because you told journalists that it had passed the tests). But it seems you very carefully didn’t publish most of the r-squared numbers themselves, and strongly resisted attempts by McIntyre to get confirmation of them. That’s what the ‘dirty laundry’ comment was about in your infamous Climategate email.

You published your reconstruction after having tested it and finding it didn’t work, and you then withheld the adverse test results, while claiming it had passed. The short-centering could have been a stupid mistake (and probably was), but on the r-squared tests you must have known exactly what you were doing. From my experience of working in law this constitutes deliberate fraud. For that reason it is my opinion you should be criminally prosecuted.”

As I expected, spoilsport Mike hastily deleted my comment within minutes of my posting. But I preserved it below as a screenshot just in case.

Inconvenient comment deleted from Michael Mann’s Facebook Page

[1.] Hat tip:  Nullius in Verba

Official Probe Shows Climategate Whitewash Link to Sandusky Child Sex Case

Legal investigation into Penn State University exposes institutional cover up of the Jerry Sandusky pedophile scandal. Judge’s findings also throw new light on “whitewash” investigation of Climategate suspect, Michael Mann.

Bad Boys Michael Mann and Jerry Sandusky Line Up for Penn State University

Former FBI Director Judge Louis Freeh and his law firm have now published their independent report (July 12, 2012) that “assessed the facts and circumstances of the actions of Pennsylvania State University surrounding the child abuse crimes of former employee, Gerald A. Sandusky.” The shocking story made international headlines.  Lawyers for the child sex victims say Judge Freeh’s Report affirms that the university hierarchy “chose to protect themselves, Penn State’s brand and image.”

Sandusky was jailed on June 22, 2012 after being found guilty of 45 out of 48 counts of sexual abuse of young boys while employed as football coach at Pennsylvania State University (PSU). The Freeh Report adjudged that PSU administration and Board of Trustees fostered lying, cover-ups of wrongdoing, ignored the effects of staff misdeeds and condoned obfuscation of investigations of wrongdoing by Sandusky.

In this article we show how PSU’s cover up for Sandusky is eerily similar to the university’s “whitewash” investigation of discredited climatologist, Michael Mann after the “Climategate” scandal. A key suspect in the scandal, Mann is implicated for allegedly fraudulent research activities, before, during and outside of his employment at PSU. The university received a cool $2 million in climate research funding. Professor Fred Singer covers the essential details here.

But while arguments over PSU’s hidden “Climategate” emails will rage anew in the U.S., across the Canadian border in the Supreme Court of British Columbia Mann is close to losing another legal battle on this issue. Mann is yet again stonewalling a court over showing his hidden “dirty laundry” of dodgy data.

But such incessant secrecy won’t save Mann.  Judge Freeh’s damning report may persuade his Canadian counterpart that Mann’s libel suit against Canadian climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball is likely vexatious and premised on a cover up. Freeh’s findings will thus make it harder for Mann to dodge a Canadian Supreme Court requirement to hand over all his disputed “dirty laundry”. If Mann won’t comply he faces punitive legal sanctions. Leaked emails proved Mann was an influential figure among climatologists accused of fixing global warming records to win lucrative government research grants worth millions. In particular, evidence reveals a statistical “trick…to hide the decline” in reliability of proxy data in Mann’s research. And Mann is certainly ahead of his peers in arrogance because he’s the only climate scientist to boast on Facebook that he “shared the Nobel Peace Prize with other IPCC authors in 2007.”

As Dr. Klaus L. E. Kaiser says: “I would like to have him answer the following: (1) Name (all) the other IPCC authors he shared the prize with; (2.) How much of the money coming with the prize did he declare in his tax return for that year?”

Apart from Tim Ball’s legal team the wider scientific community is also poring over the Freeh report. What they are finding is disturbing similarities in the way PSU handled Sandusky compared with the Michael Mann “whitewash” probe of 2010.

One British climate co-conspirator of Mann, Professor Phil Jones, escaped criminal prosecution only by a legal loophole. While the Freeh Report does not use those words, its recommendations imply that PSU actively covered-up such crimes and created a culture of silence in the face of wrongdoing by the university’s media stars and idols.

Spanier and Schultz Led Sandusky and Mann Cover Ups

The stunning report, that took eight months to compile with over 400 interviews and which cost in excess of $4 million, pointed to the university’s overriding motive: money and prestige. It names PSU President Graham B. Spanier and Senior Vice President-Finance and Business Gary C. Shultz for failing to do their duty during the cover up of Sandusky’s crimes. PSU President Spanier was fired from his $813,000/year job for failing to hold a proper investigation into Sandusky. Schultz is charged with perjury for allegedly lying to a grand jury and failing to report suspected child abuse. Both men were likewise instrumental in getting Mann cleared in the PSU “Climategate” probe.

Last year this author first highlighted startling similarities in the self-serving way PSU handled both the Mann and Sandusky controversies. Despite Michael Mann being the most likely fraudster in “Climategate” PSU exonerated him with a one-sided investigation. The university conceded it only interviewed two witnesses – both ardent supporters of Mann – Jerry North and Donald Kennedy. Mann, once cleared by PSU of any wrongdoing then launched a libel case in Canada against climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball who criticized Mann’s mendacious methods. Ball, a leading skeptic, opined that Mann belongs “in the State pen, not Penn. State.”

Criminal Cover Up Taints University at “Highest Level”

Today, the Sandusky victims’ lawyers, Andrew Shubin and Justine Andronici, declare that the Freeh report exposes corruption in Penn State “at the highest level.”  They are satisfied that Judge Freeh’s Report focused on the inaction of these administrators who failed to create an environment that held senior officials accountable.

“From 1998-2011, Penn State’s “Tone at the Top” for transparency, compliance, police reporting and child protection was completely wrong, as shown by the inaction and concealment on the part of its most senior leaders, and followed by those at the bottom of the University’s pyramid of power,” Judge Freeh said.

The Freeh Report outlines hard-hitting recommendations in its 267-pages. His final statement: “It is critical that Old Main, the Board and the Penn State community never forget these failures and commit themselves to strengthening an open, compliant and victim sensitive environment — where everyone has the duty to ‘blow the whistle’ on anyone who breaks this trust, no matter how powerful or prominent they may appear to be.”

Spanier’s Bold-faced Lies to Save Michael Mann

Pointedly, Spanier and Schultz had falsely claimed that PSU’s self-serving investigation into Mann had  “spent hundreds of hours studying documents and interviewing people and looking at issues from all sides.”

But this was a bold-faced lie. Incredibly, Spanier saw to it that his “investigation committee” did not investigate three of the four charges against Mann – especially not the “trick…to hide the decline.” But PSU never sought any examination of his calculations and the term “hide the decline” doesn’t even feature in their report. Thus PSU may be adjudged to have willfully failed to investigate whether Mann was in breach of PSU’s Research Administration Policy No. 10.

Further examination of PSU’s “investigation” shows the investigators wanted to keep hidden Mann’s climate data processes. As PSU admits, “enormous confusion has been caused by interpretations of the e-mails and their content.”

 PSU Investigation Fostered “Confusion”

But rather than get to the root of the “confusion” that would be best cleared up by full and frank examination of such emails that supposedly “hide the decline” PSU irregularly dropped three of the four charges against Mann and then battled (and still battle today) to sustain such “confusion.” On page 9 of PSU’s shoddy report they admit the reason they didn’t probe too deeply into Mann’s emails was because to do so would be “undermining [to] confidence in his findings as a scientist… and public trust in science in general and climate science specifically.”

When told by the subsequent Investigation Committee that they weren’t investigating the substantive charges, Richard Lindzen, a world-leading climatologist, told the committee, “It’s thoroughly amazing. I mean these issues are explicitly stated in the emails. I’m wondering what’s going on?”

Thereafter, other authorities blindly accepted PSU’s exoneration of Mann without conducting any further serious inquiry into his alleged data rigging. But the NAS found that Mann’s methods had no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. But skeptics accused Mann of lying when he claimed NAS said the contrary.

Money not Morals Motivated Penn. State University Board

At the height of the Climategate controversy statistical experts like Steve McIntyre and Edward Wegman demonstrated that Mann’s mangling of the statistics “erased” the Medieval Warm Period, along with other well established temperature variations. [1.]

McIntyre noted: “It’s hard not to transpose the conclusions of the Penn State Climategate “investigation” into Penn State’s attitude towards misconduct charges in their profitable football program.”

Myron Ebell, Director of Energy and Global Warming Policy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute observes, “The Penn State ethics review [of Mann] was “designed as a whitewash. The evidence of manipulation of data is too obvious and too strong.” Ebell and other critics argue that, as with football coach Sandusky, Michael E. Mann brought huge financial rewards to the university. The smell of money swayed the senses of Spanier because in his world money and success equated to integrity and prestige. This was tellingly revealed in the reasons he gave why Mann should be exonerated.

Such critics point to Spanier’s statements about both men as proof of the (corruptible) self-serving money motive at PSU. Spanier first declared that Mann’s:

“level of success in proposing research, and obtaining funding to conduct it, clearly places Dr. Mann among the most respected scientists in his field. Such success would not have been possible had he not met or exceeded the highest standards of his profession for proposing research…”

Then Spanier issued an eerily similar statement to exonerate Sandusky:

“This level of success on the football field and revenue generated from it, clearly places Coaches Paterno and Sandusky among the most respected professionals in their field. Such success would not have been possible had he not met or exceeded the highest standards of their profession in operating a football program…”

“Had Coach Paterno or Coach Sandusky’s conduct of their program been outside the range of accepted practices, it would have been impossible for them to receive so many awards and recognitions, which typically involve intense scrutiny from peers who may or may not agree with his program … ”

The above statements prove the status of the football program and its leaders, Paterno and Sandusky, are an EXACT parallel to Michael Mann’s status. Both brought massive funding to PSU. Both enjoyed the adoration of the press. Both worked outside the system of checks and balances. Both were “investigated” by PSU staff. Both were cleared by PSU of wrongdoing. From plain reading of Freeh’s report we see there is NO reason to believe that the same corrupt administration that empowered Paterno and Sandusky’s crimes would act any differently in Mann’s case.

Canadian Court to Go Where Corrupt U.S. Authorities Refuse to Look

Whatever the fallout from Freeh in the U.S. it now looks most likely that the Supreme Court of British Columbia will be the first place where Penn. State’s illicit cover up will be fully exposed. The Wall Street Journal agrees a slew of related civil and criminal lawsuits may follow.

Top Canadian skeptic climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball’s legal team is moving ever closer to defeating Michael Mann’s ludicrous libel suit against Ball. Ball’s lawyer is applying Canadian rules of evidence to corner Mann into handing over his hidden hockey stick data for courtroom examination.

In essence, Ball’s lawyer will argue that Mann’s ‘Hockey stick’ graph isn’t so much about climate – but about statistical treatment of data, and the reliability of the data source. “Climategate” emails already prove that Mann covered up data errors (his “dirty laundry”) he already knew about. As such a full audit of his data is no different from any accounts audit where qualified statisticians can fully and conclusively analyze the numbers for a jury to decide if intentional fraud had been perpetrated.

But with what little evidence has already filtered out into the public domain we can see Mann’s procedure of short centered principal components analysis created a bias towards a hockey stick, even with random data, which any court would agree was proof of intentional fraud.  As Tim Ball predicts: “Climategate, like its namesake Watergate, will ultimately collapse because of the cover-up reinvigorated by the phony inquiries.”

As such, Mann’s destiny looks to be a jail cell alongside Sandusky thanks to PSU’s blind pursuit of money that will consign the university to no less ignominy while Climategate will be acknowledged as the science crime of the century.

[1.] AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE ‘HOCKEY STICK’ GLOBAL CLIMATE RECONSTRUCTION, also known as The Wegman report was authored by Edward J. Wegman, George Mason University, David W. Scott, Rice University, and Yasmin H. Said, The Johns Hopkins University with the contributions of John T. Rigsby, III, Naval Surface Warfare Center, and Denise M. Reeves, MITRE Corporation.

Time for us to get real on this green energy obsession

(Source: Western Morning News)

There has never been a more important time for people to wake up and see the reality that lies behind the great “green agenda” and the belief in carbon induced climate change.

Just Say No to Environmental Extremism

In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention. Chilling isn’t it!

This ugly belief that we are destroying the planet is being forced into every corner of our lives. It is taught in schools, to children, who are told that their forefathers helped to put the planet on death row. It is squeezed into every corner of everyday life, from the type of houses we build, the way we heat them and even to the type of bulbs we are allowed to use in them, from food production through to waste and to just about any form of transport and travel!

Nobody can escape being part of the equation, we are all guilty. But that is the whole point! Why invent something that will only control a few?

Environmentalists the world over have driven this movement, by harping on about the fragile earth and all of its resources that we should protect.

The situation is this, for all the evil we apparently do to the world by eating meat, driving cars, and keeping warm, the only solution seems to be to tax everyone more. Apart from the obvious taxes on fuel, on coal, on industries, all of which are based on CO2 (Yes, CO2, that naturally occurring plant food that we have all been led to believe is a pollutant) there are many more hidden taxes. The useless, countryside-destroying windmills, encouraged by environmentalists, just earn millions of pounds for the owners, paid for by us – a tax. The incentives for biomass paid for by us – a tax. The power generated by solar panels, albeit very little, paid for by us – a tax. And so on. Next year a carbon floor price will be introduced which will further increase the cost of energy. And all of this hardship is being perpetuated by an invented problem, that our messing with carbon will end life as we know it! What rubbish.

The latest local ramification to all this is the huge number of people living in fuel poverty. The solution apparently includes guess what? Cutting our carbon emissions! I have never heard so much counterproductive nonsense. Fuel poverty is caused by rising prices. Every single carbon-reducing plan comes hand in hand with an increase in price. Hence the chase for less carbon will cause more fuel poverty. It’s time to get real, and free ourselves from this anti CO2 obsession.

Please remember, climate change is the natural deviation of a planet’s ever changing weather pattern, and nothing we see now is new. It has all been here before in history, hotter and colder. However, Manmade Global Warming is nothing but politics.

Politics in its most manipulative and controlling guise. Don’t let it continue.

Summer Weather Forecasting on Trial at Top Science Blog

Top American science blog challenges maverick British forecaster to beat the best of the rest in a July shootout. Piers Corbyn of Weather Action takes the test in a month he predicts will be “terrible” and “full of extremes.”

WeatherAction Frontman Piers Corbyn Forecasts Extreme July Weather for US

Corbyn, already the darling of London’s mayor and Russia TV, is rising to the gambit by giving away free this whole month’s weather summary for USA and for Europe.

The WeatherAction front man is boldly predicting that July 2012 will show, “Ongoing extremes and major contrasts across USA and Europe and associated large amplitude swings in the Jet Stream are aspects of pre-Little Ice Age weather patterns as the world descends towards a new Little Ice Age of a colder climate caused by low solar activity especially around 2020-45.”

Carnival Barker Makes Fantastic Claims

Anyone and everyone may use Corbyn’s predictions and partake in the test after WUWT’s Anthony Watts threw down the gauntlet after labeling Corbyn a “carnival barker” who makes “fantastic claims.”  But even cynic Anthony Watts appears to concede that if Corbyn wasn’t any good he wouldn’t still be in business. [1.]

Piers is very much a betting man as evidenced when leading British bookmakers, William Hill, banned him after he cleaned up with a slew of correct forecasting bets. The avuncular Londoner proclaims, “WeatherAction forecasts are about getting the best long range picture for useful decision making and they work and win on scientific bets. Farmers use them to see around when is there a chance of dry time for harvest/rain, etc.”

Anthony Watts of WUWT remains skeptical and wants reader feedback during the month to help validate (or disprove) Corbyn’s claims of an 80 percent success rate. But WeatherAction (WA) does issue one caveat: “Please note these are not forward projection by any computing system and one weather period can go wrong then the next one revert to being right.”

Corbyn is clear that all WA users have their own measures of usefulness. The greatest value, he says, is seen among USA farmers, environmental activity workers, emergency services people where “Often detail does not matter but the
sort of weather in a general region / time window is enough to help plan.”

When asked to authenticate his past successes Corbyn points to AccuWeather’s end of year list of extreme events for 2011 that all turned out to have been forecast by WeatherAction. “Of the 6 public 3month ahead specific extremes around world issued Oct 2011 the success was 5/5 and one ‘non-runner,’” beams Corbyn.

There is no doubt that WeatherAction is unique in that it devises forecasts by connecting solar and lunar activities with the propagation of simultaneous weather events globally. “Our forecasts are solar-based and we can track predicted events on the sun to Earth’s weather. These events are nothing to do with CO2 changes which have no effect on weather or climate,” said Piers.

 Met Office Ran from Similar Forecasting Face-off

Last year the BBC’s Roger Harrabin asked the UK Meteorological Office (MO), a government agency with a whopping £170 million per year taxpayer dole, to battle it out with Corbyn and other big hitters in a head-to-head making daily, weekly, monthly and seasonal forecasts. But as Harrabin conceded, “ Piers Corbyn is the only person to have volunteered so far to be tested in all these categories.”

While the MO is quite successful with it’s five-day forecasts it’s attempts at seasonal predictions are awful because they appear to be compelled to use the junk science (carbon dioxide-biased) computer models of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.

Recalling March 2012 WeatherAction’s CO2-free forecasting correctly foresaw the Jet Stream moving south and blocking – a phenomenon Corbyn believes indicates a possible ice age trend. Britain got more cold winds from the East and much higher than average rain – much against the usual UK pattern. By contrast, the UK Met Office predicted a drier than usual period and backed the hosepipe ban, of which Corbyn’s “Wettest Drought” forecast made a mockery.

Admitting Errors When They Occur

Corbyn predicted the month of May 2012 (with high probability) could be among the coldest five UK Mays in a century. If the month were only 21 days long he would have been spot on. A final very warm week allowed a nervous MO to call the month “average.”

But the Met Office’s preference for the non-committal “higher than” or “lower than” average temperature,  “drier than” or “wetter than” average approach is all of so little use to Corbyn’s main customers – the farming industry. Here there is a strong need for much more specific notice of extreme weather events. What demonstrates perfectly that the MO forecasts are as vague as the quatrains of Nostradamus is what they currently offer:

“The probability that UK precipitation for July/August/September will fall into the driest of our five categories is around 20% whilst the probability that it will fall into the wettest of our five categories is also around 20% (the 1971-2000 climatological probability for each of these categories is 20%).”

While in late June the BBC, without any shame, touted a revised MO graphic that was almost an exact copy of Corbyn’s graphic produced a month earlier now also claiming the Jet Stream had moved south.

The recent furor with Britain’s “Wettest Drought” proved Corbyn has visceral hatred of the increasingly politicized UK’s Met Office and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that, he claims, operate a modeling scam biased towards an imaginary carbon dioxide heating (CO2) effect. But indications are that principled MO meteorologists are fighting back against the bullheaded modelers. But they have yet to gain permission to bring Piers into their fold – and only then will Corbyn offer insight to his mercurial techniques.

In the meantime, with government forecasters turning fence sitting into an art form the bold Piers is man enough to admit when and why he goes wrong. For the last ten days of May he conceded he hadn’t anticipated a huge sunspot that went off apparently pushing the Jet Stream temporarily further north.  But like any good forecaster, Corbyn updates his prognosis when events start deviating from his forecasts.

Scientific Method based on Long-term Observations

WeatherAction’s proprietary (and thus secret) method incorporates solar/lunar data. As such, Corbyn’s latest predictions are based on the low magnetic field of the sun making weather similar to the early years of the Little Ice Age.

Piers summarised, “The underlying point is extreme weather is here now and continuing – as we predicted. It is a sign of a new Little Ice Age.” Corbyn dismissed claims that he always makes over the top statements. “Sometimes our long range forecasts are overstated and sometimes understated,” he said. As Anthony Watts declared: “Since Corbyn is a fellow climate skeptic, let’s give him a fair but factual evaluation to find out if these claims hold up. “

So go to Twitter to see Piers Corbyn’s latest messages with up-to-the-minute information on the latest in weather and climate issues. “Compare us with whatever anyone else said that time ahead,” proclaims Corbyn.

[1.] Watts, A.W., ‘Putting Piers Corbyn to the test,’ (wuwt.com: accessed online: July 10, 2012)

Science Goes Over-Under, Inside-Out

(Guest post by Joseph A Olson, PE)

There is likely no life learning experience as instructive as a Near Death Experience. When the NDE involves an uncommon encounter with the unseen power of a common, everyday occurrence, CLOUDS. Seen from afar, cumulus clouds are benign giant puffs of cotton balls floating across the sky. While you can notice slight changes in shape, you have no real understanding of the real forces at work within.

Crazy Post-normal Scientist James Hansen

For several years, I have been joined by the world’s top scientists in an effort to expose Carbon Climate Forcing as the worst science in history. We have employed the full range of scientific arguments, and yet the myth persists, that Carbon Dioxide and it’s accomplice, water vapor, WARM the Earth. There is nothing like first-hand experience to dispel a myth.

Just released in the Journal of Geophysical Research is an article on the “ground breaking report on clouds causing cooling” [1]. After arguing just this point in dozens of articles over the last several years, it is time to share my personal anecdote on the behavior of water vapor INSIDE of a cloud.

I started flight training in Feb of 1976 on a lark. Growing up with plastic Revelle and flying balsa Thimbledrone model aircraft, it was easy to dream of being a pilot. By June I had thirteen hours of instruction and seven hours of solo in my log book. The next training was the ‘cross country solo’. I left the Laport, Texas airport early on a Saturday morning en route to Brownsville with a fuel stop in Corpus Christi.

Skies were 25% broken cumulus with 2500 ft ceiling, meeting Visual Flight Rules. The cloud tops were at 7500 ft, where you got better radio navigation signals and the air was also much cooler. The Corpus stop was routine as was the first hour headed south. What I did not notice was that the clouds were becoming less and less broken…and I was in for a permanent life lesson.

Airport radar and radio signals work on line of sight and are therefore a function of altitude….although help from the Harlingen or Brownsville airports at this point would be useless. As I approached the cloud tops at 7500 ft I noticed the surface was in constant turmoil with puffs swirling out and disappearing. The next thing I noticed was that these things were HUGE…and now only 50% broken I could not possible bank and turn my way between these cotton puff giants.

What happened next is rare, dangerous and prohibited for VFR pilots and non IFR aircraft. I banked between the first two clouds only to make a bull’s eye approach at 7300 ft into the next cloud. Perhaps you’ve noticed some ‘turbulence’ in a 120,000 lb passenger plane traveling 400 mph as you flew through a cloud. I was in a 1600 lb aircraft with a maximum speed of 110 mph.

Entering the cloud felt like hitting a wall. Suddenly everything was white, it was raining from every direction and the wind was howling. Most aircraft instruments operate using a static port on the side of the plane or a pitot tube which faces forward. There were massive vertical wind shears that rendered the instruments useless. The altitude, air speed, rate of climb and artificial horizon gauges were all bouncing peg to peg.

“Flying by the seat of your pants” quickly becomes the over-riding instinct. You are now in vertigo and your butt thinks it knows where the Earth is. You are fooled by the changing gravity of the rapid up and down wind shear. You are surrounded by glowing white light and cannot see further than ten feet in any direction. The wings are shaking at beyond maximum design loading and the LAST thing you want is your BUTT flying the plane.

The propeller is used to 110 mph wind from the nose, but is disturbed by the 200 mph up and down winds. Throttle back to avoid over revving, then concentrate on the only two instruments that are still functioning, the magnetic compass and the curved glass tube with a ball in glycerin. Inside a cloud, where everything is rapidly changing, the Earth’s magnetic field and gravity are the only constants. After the longest minute of my life, I popped out of the cloud into blue skies above, altitude 7000 ft and my next white giant straight ahead.

Repeating this process another ten or twelve times brought me to the bottom of the cloud formations. There you could easily see the rain falling to the warm bottom and rapidly evaporating, then rising back to the top. During the perilous decent I had lost my visual flight references (highways) and was now below radio and radar signal altitude.

Since nothing below looked like South Texas, my position must be Northern Mexico. I turned northeast, spotted the Gulf and turned up the Rio Grande on my way to the airport, which I could now contact by radio.

“Brownsville Tower to Cessna 22163, you are cleared to land on runway 35, when you

do your roll out, taxi over to the control tower, we want to have a chat”.

The “chat” included a tour of the control tower, review of the Notice to Airmen on the Harlingen VOR (radio nav) and Brownsville radar equipment being down for service that weekend, along with some friendly advice on my future air adventures. (FAA was kind to novice pilots back then)

Notice to Clima-clownologists

WATER VAPOR IS NOT A GREENHOUSE GAS AND CLOUDS DO NOT WARM THE EARTH. If you still have trouble understanding the simple empirical truth of clouds, then get a telescope, and with the Sun at your back, look at a cloud. You will see the rapid vaporization of the visible water droplets all along the sides and bottom.

This now invisible, heated water vapor rises RAPIDLY to the cloud top, where it cools, condenses and the falls again. The average cumulus cloud weights 800 tons. Any mass between you and a heat source will slow heat transfer and therefore be a cooling agent.

During the day, clouds absorb heat at low altitudes, release heat at high altitudes and COOL the Earth. At night, this same process SLOWS cooling, but does not heat the Earth. Maybe it takes a “New Paper Finds Clouds Act as Negative Feedback” to challenge your false GHG orthodoxy, or maybe you just need to LOOK at a few clouds.

Joseph A Olson, PE

July 6, 2012

[1] http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/new-paper-finds-clouds-act-as-negative.html