WaPo and VaPilot hypocrites on Cuccinelli
By Brian Kirwin | Friday, May 7th, 2010 | PolicyNewspapers have a new rule. If Ken Cuccinelli demands documents from public sources, they oppose it. The Virginian-Pilot calls it “harassment” and the Washington Post calls it a “chilling assault.”
Guess who demands documents at a clip that would make even Cuccinelli blush?
The Washington Post and the Virginian-Pilot.
These newspapers pelt government offices repeatedly for emails, documents, agendas, minutes and even text messages searching for stories. If their sudden policies have changed and requests for government documents are suddenly “chilling assaults” and “harassment,” they better gather what few reporters they have left and let them know.
I think one of them just checked in at the Virginia Beach FOIA office. That reporter should know the untold harassment and assault the newspaper thinks he is conducting.
If anyone stood in the way of the press gaining access to public documents, they’d scream to high heaven. But they’re more than willing to applaud, urge and rally around the University of Virginia and telling them to fight the request for documents related to government funding.
The WaPo says “the university should immediately challenge the attorney general’s ‘civil investigative demand’ for documents.”
Great precedent, WaPo! Which requests of yours should be denied as well?
“There’s no reason for Cuccinelli to insert himself into that conversation,” says the Virginian-Pilot.
Great precedent, VP. Do you want others deciding which conversations you insert yourself into? I hereby decide you no longer are allowed to endorse political candidates. Happy?
Hint for newspapers – don’t advocate restrictions on Cuccinelli’s access to public information that you aren’t willing to apply to yourselves.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
The right wants to jeer him. The left wants to censor him. Moderates usually want both. Brian Kirwin is a political consultant and public relations strategist in Virginia Beach with a lightning-rod flair. Brian also serves on the VB Arts & Humanities Commission and frequently appears on Hampton Roads theatrical stages, if only to prove that all actors aren’t liberals. Kirwin’s columns stir up debate and hit the political scene with no punches pulled.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
39 Responses to "WaPo and VaPilot hypocrites on Cuccinelli"
Brian, in all due respect, you need to run your articles past an editor. Confusing the freedom of the press with the judgement of an elected official to launch an official investigation ought to send up a red flag. If you can’t see how an investigation of a respected scientist, no matter how controversial are his views, sends a chilling message to the scientific and academic community, then you are blinded by ideology. Are we saying to the best scientific minds in the nation, come to Virginia. If our AG doesn’t agree with you, stand by for a state investigation.
Mike, are you really naive enough to believe that the Post and the Pilot aren’t blinded by their own ideology? The Attorney General is looking into the use, and possible missuse of state funding.
If either the Post or the Pilot had any comprehension of objective journalism, they’d be filing their FOIAs in Charlottesville.
Ward, I regret that you missed the point. The press is necesary, no, required, to question and investigate in order to keep us free of government tyranny. The Attorney General on the other hand is judged by a different standard. Apparently, in Virginia, if your research compels you to publish a view that is counter to his own personal ideology, you open yourself to state investigation. If you can’t see the chilling effect on science, technology, and the arts and humanities, then regretfully, I conclude you as well are blinded by ideology. I thought this blog, above almost all others, would be protective of individual rights and liberties; sadly, it seems the opposite.
Mike, no…if you apply for taxpayer dollars you open yourself up to public scrutiny.
You, of all people, should know that.
Publicly-funded documents are publicly-funded documents.
If the press, or private citizens, can FOIA any government agency for a variety of taxpayer-funded records, then it follows that a government agency can ask to see similar documents.
I don’t remember any howling from the left when Tim Kaine initially declined to provide details of his DNC travels from trips in the past because it would “indicate a pattern of travel” that was a security concern. Because, of course, anyone who wished to do the governor harm would naturally benefit from knowing that Kaine had been to the Fontainebleu Hotel in Miami the previous week.
If indeed you subscribe to the notion that “climate change” (formerly known as “global warming,” much like “progressive,” formerly known as “liberal”), then you should not fear the release of such documents.
I thought “progressives” were adverse to government entities concealing records.
Depends on the topic, I guess.
At least “progressives” are consistent with protecting the privacy of individual citizens, which is why President Obama and the Democrat Congress have repealed the unconstitutional Patriot Act.
Oh, wait…
I’ve checked with some reporters who have confirmed for me that neither newspaper has told them that their requests for documents are “harassment” or “chilling assaults” and they intend to continue requesting documents for stories.
One reporter asked all elected officials for every email they’ve sent and received on a topic this week. No mention if that would have a “chilling effect” on elected officials emailing their constituents in response to questions.
I guess you have to be named Cuccinelli for the press to object to actions that the press does all the time.
Right on Kirwin, it is amazing how the Pilot seems to jump on everything Ken does or say. Good job pointing out the Post and Pilot’s “do as I say, not as I do” ethos.
And can we say a collective – ARE WE SURPRISED? Nah – not in the least. The Washington Compost is a has been newspaper trying to keep its head above water and the Pilot is right there with them. Mike, how about I file the FIOA request against UVA to see how they are spending MY tax money? Better yet – why (as pointed out) isn’t the WaPo filing the FIOA against UVA? Isn’t that what they are suppose to do – inform the public about when their money is being mis-spent? Do you have any idea how many FIOA requests were leveled at the AG’s office trying to find ANY reason to be able to attack them after they filed the lawsuit challenging HCR (which is clearly unconstitutional to ANYONE with even half a brain) but no, we can’t see if a scientist is misusing funding to promote a science that is now questionable at BEST a flat out LIE at worst.
When scientists play for funding they play to the political agenda of their money source.
Scientists are human too. It is inevitable that appetites will distort perceptions.
But that does not mean that they should not be held to a standard of integrity that is higher than other professions, say accountants, lawyers or even reverends. How can they not be unless they wish to cease being respected as scientists. Scientists have the inherent duty to make a very large scope reality check against ALL the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God. No other profession has such broad and deep reliance upon first principles as the source of their authority. Accountants, lawyers and reverends have standards that they must rectify their conduct by or invite both civil liability and criminal culpability. How can it be any different for scientists? Why should it be any different for scientists? Ideas have consequences. The consequences of an idea are dependent upon the credibility of its messenger to a very large degree. Credibility gives a messenger authority and with that authority comes responsibility and its consequential ACCOUNTABILITY. If a messenger is given social sanction by their professional standing then the accountability is inherent in that social standing must match or inequity and iniquity will result. In our society, at this time scientists are given great credibility and greater benefit of doubt. They may be wrong, but only honestly so, else they invoke the righteous judgment due status felonies like statutory rape, statutory embezzlement and statutory treason. For these causes we must commend Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli for his well tuned sense of duty.
Resisting the investigation is a very bad idea and likely criminal. Also bad politics: How does that quote of grandmother wisdom go?
“That thing in your hand, Child, it is only what you are hiding.”
http://TeaPartyConstitutionalists.ning.com/
re: Cuccinelli & EPA
So now ‘they’ conceit the authority to regulate our breath and most forms of life by regulating CO2. The almighty ‘progressive’ controlled state apparatus now takes the most basic of what rights God gave us. CO2 regulation is not about the health of the planet – it is all about control – so more cream can be skimmed off anything that exists.
Most folks who actually love their mother cannot find the time to make a big manipulation out of it. “Me thinks they doth protest too much.”
“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.” — Mahatma Gandhi
Many scientists are anything but ethical. its all about the money.
For example, lets take cholesterol and heart attacks. A study long ago showed a link between intake of cholesterol and heart attacks. The “improved” study showed that. The original study showed no such link. The study was done by countries.Actually the country that had the highest intake of cholesterol also had the lowest incidence of heart attacks. The data was “fudged”. That country and couple of others were left out of the study. So the improved study showed a link.
Why was this done?
How many of you take anti-cholesterol drugs?
Lots of money for many different people.
I am a pharmacist and when I was in Pharmacy school, all of my professors were telling us about what had happened.
Some of you might want to read this link. Do NOT buy anything, just read the info. And yes I take vitamins and nutritional supplements.
http://www.saveyourheart.com/historyofthenutritionalcure_heartdiseasehealth.html
Meh, I dunno about this one. I do see a giant distinction between the press using FOIA requests for information versus the AG requesting these documents.
I’d hopr that Cuccinelli would have more pressing things to take care of… like stuff that actually matters?
Ken is an activist AG. Good. Connecticut has one in Blumenthal. He uses his office to protect his constituents from fraud caused by Wall Street, etc. Ken is using his power of investigation to look for fraud in scientific research that is used to drive or support public policy. Good for the taxpayers. If it has a chilling effect I hope it is this: Stop Lying in your research in order to get more funding because the VA AG will find out about it. That’s very good for Virginia’s taxpayers.
This is why the attorney general is demanding that the university turn over astonishingly vast numbers of e-mails and other documents relating to Mr. Mann, including all correspondence with a long list of other so called reputable scientists.
The link below is of emails of those scientists.
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/UnprecedentedWarming.htm
I guess I am more astounded at the posts herein than I am to Brian’s original piece. This lack of respect herein for the basic right of free speech in a university setting is surprising to find on a web site that purports to believe in the sanctity of the constitution. Our founding fathers would be particularly upset that discussion is occuring in Virginia. It would not surprise me to hear that Scientists are dusting off their vitas in preparation for moving out of Virginia goven the AG’s irresponsible, costly, and chilling witch hunt.
Our founding fathers would be particularly upset at all the government money these researchers are chasing.
Well Brian, that may be the case, but of course, that is not the issue. The issue is an Attorney General who has an ideological difference with a scientist who was on the faculty at UVA, and because of that differece, that Scientist is now under investigation. Presumably, if this scientist opposed the concept of global climate change, he would not have been investigated. Again, for this outrage to fail to be condemned herein, on a web site for conservatives who support the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, is simply indicative that on Bearing Drift, ideological purity trumps the Law every time.
I would certainly condemn any investigation just based on ideological differences. I don’t believe that has been proven yet. I hope he has more of a basis for the investigation than one or two comments someone made. I think he is just trying to ensure that taxpayer funds are not being used for a boondoggle. I don’t see why any of the information requested by the AG wouldn’t be released. If the AG doesn’t find anything, then that would provide some more credibility to the climate change theory proponents.
Oh, that response is classic. Thank you providing the definition of a witch hunt. I guess he will soon ask me for my tax return because I have criticized this witch hunt. Afterall, I receive a DoD retirement check so he must zealously guard the national treasury. But that’s ok; if he doesn’t find anything, I’ll be declared innocent and he will return it. Talk about over reaching government control. Alive and well in Virginia.
Witch hunt? Mike, that kind of crap happens everyday. It’s called the Democrat-controlled Congress. Tell me what industry they haven’t called before Congress on a witch hunt or show trial. Back to the point, Ken is working to see if there is collusion among the scientists trying to justify their personal theories to gain more research dollars. If this action makes fraudulent scientists want to leave Virginia I say, “good riddance.”
I did not vote for Cuccinelli because of some of my fears and I now see that some of my fears are being realized. This is not the first time Cuccenelli has taken action which seems to be motivated by his political extremism. While his actions might be applauded by some of the more conservative visitors to this blog, I pose this question to some of the more moderate voters who might also visit who might have cast their vote for Cuccinelli: Are you happy with who you voted for? Is this political extremism that borders on the bizarre what you really wanted?
Ken Cuccinelli is asking for the emails and such of Michael Mann.
“The most extreme fraud was said to be that of Michael E. Mann in his “hockey stick” graph of temps from 1000-1998, published in 1999.”
“Horner depicts enviro efforts to control temps as requiring lying about what actual temps are and have been. According to Horner, enviros have “eliminated” the global cooling from 1940-1970, tried to hide the warming from 1900-1940 and the “Little Ice Age” from 1450-1850, and especially the “Medieval Climate Optimum” from 1000-1450 AD, when temps were warmer than now. The most extreme fraud was said to be that of Michael E. Mann in his “hockey stick” graph of temps from 1000-1998, published in 1999. Two Canadians, Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, found data selection and computer massaging of the data series used, and persuaded the Editor of Nature to demand a “correction of error”, which was done with ill grace. Yet the “hockey stick” graph is still presented as the temp record of 1000 years by alarmists. Many other details are given of disappearing ground stations for temps, no correction for urban heat island effects, general cooling in the southern hemisphere for 50 years, and the total non-correlation of temps with carbon dioxide concentrations. Like old Communist re-writing of history, the Medieval Climate Optimum during low carbon dioxide concentrations had to be written out of history so the innocents would think there is unprecedented warming NOW.”
Email from Michael Mann to Phil Jones and others, Jun 4, 2003, (Subject: “Prospective Eos Piece?” [http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=319&filename=1054736277.txt]).
“it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet
have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back”
http://books.google.com/books?id=8HzBjbAaOVcC&dq=cosmic+rays+cause+global+warming&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=n-zmS9DbJsP38AbZhfj8DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CEUQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q&f=false
If you wish I can print page after page of the emails of those so called reputable scientists.
Ken Cuccinelli is only trying to show the truth.
Why does the TRUTH scare so many of you so much?
“You shall know the truth, and the truth will make you free”
Nobody should be allowed to make inquiries the MSM deems irrelevant – especially not an elected official in the course of his official duties. If there is a law broken or a scandal to be sniffed out, and it is in their best interest to do so, the Fourth Estate will break the story and then our electeds may launch an official inquiry.
Frankly, if the apologists herein cannot see the effect of this kind of political extremism from the Attorney General of our Commonwealth, it makes my opinion of the posters on Bearing Drift to drop below rags like the Virginia News Service. This is zealotry at the highest level of state government, and once again makes Virginia the laughing stock of all the states in the Nation. Has anyone on this forum ever heard of academic freedom? Shall we now deny evolution, gravity, the motion of the planets around the sun because it conflicts with the AG’s world view? Frankly, I expect this kind of extreme ideology from Cuccinelli, but from intelligent participants on this forum? No way.
Come on, Barrett. If you really think that an inquiry into potential fraud in the wake of climategate is equivalent to denying gravity, then it is not we who are political extremists. And, frankly, I find this defensiveness intriguing – this is only an issue b/c Mann’s research is taxpayer funded – if there is nothing to find, then why the fuss? Isn’t that what we were told when an activist democrat AG like NY’s Spitzer launched an investigation of charitable pregnancy care centers?
Oh, I get it now. Scientists at Virginia Colleges and Universities need to check with the AG before they conclude their research to make sure they get his check off on the conclusion of their research? Otherwise, they put themselves and their University at risk of an investigation. Again, if you don’t see the chilling effect this absurd waste of taxpayers funds will have at our Universities, then you believe in state indoctrinization, not education.
Mike, I’m surprised you’d call the scientists’ work an “absurd waste of taxpayer funds.”
That’s what you meant, right?
Actually, Mike, I question your perception. It took me one conversation with Brian to realize I was talking to a small, narrow mind. I come back here occasionally to see the right wing hysteria on display and I often read your comments. Why do you persist in trying to reason with these people? Mike, you are the worst kind of liberal, one who believes that if you just keep explaining it to him then the flat-earther will accept the roundness of the earth. Mike, they don’t get it, they don’t want to get it, and you sir, persists, in believing even ardent right wingers are merely ignorant not really just dumb. I hate when liberals think all people can understand if we just give them the opportunity. Bull, some people are just not smart, dumb, low IQ. I question your intellect, Mike, if you continue to argue with them. It’s like discussions with your dog.
Well yes, but I write not necessarily for those who post, but for those who read. Afterall, what better way to reach those who still think and review alternatives instead of just consulting the play book. When they read the words posted herein by some of the ideologues, they must blanch at the lack of intellectual rigor. And when Brian makes another in an incessant line of wise cracks, he displays the fact that he is wrong once again and further, he knows he is wrong.
The popular global warming theory: that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have caused unprecedented global warming in the second half of the 20th century, is based strictly on the combination of two features:
1. The use of computer models – the climate models cannot reproduce the warming from 1970 – 2000 without CO2, and
2. The requirement that the warming from 1970 through the 1990s is unprecedented.
If it the late 20th century warming can’t be shown to be unprecedented, then there is a major problem with the theory (there has been no warming since the 1990s, which is also becoming a problem for the theory).
The IPCC went to considerable effort to provide evidence that the warming was unprecedented. The “hockey-stick” graph produced by Michael Mann (and used by the IPCC and Al Gore) eliminated the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age in order to exaggerate the 20th century
warming.
If one, however, provides an overview of the literature on the subject of Medieval Warm Period, which has been published in recent years, there will be a completely different picture. There are now quite a number of studies from around the world, showing all one thing. And indeed, that the High Middle Ages were warmer than today. An excellent overview can be found on the website CO2 Science, which has set up a whole section for studies of this kind [24]. There are now 765 different scientists from 453 research institutes listed that have worked on the medieval warm period. A small portion of these studies is shown in the figure below [Click 25] (by the graph, you get a larger image where you can select individual work).
This survey shows one thing quite clearly. At the time of the Middle Ages, that is, from 1000 to 1300 it was almost everywhere in the world warmer than today. There have been periods of warming, that exceeded 0.6 degree Celsius rise in temperature in the 20th century and totally without the man-made increased emissions of the supposed “climate killer” of CO2. The statements, that there has not been any Medieval Warm Period, or it was merely a localized phenomenon, can safely be regarded as untenable.
It is therefore not surprising that there are influences on the climate, which can by far exceed the CO2 as a driver of climate variability. This hypothesis is massively supported by the observations made during the last 10 years. Finally, we have been experiencing no increase since 2002, the temperatures have dropped slightly [26]. And that even though the emissions of CO2 from fossil fuels in exactly the same period increased to previously unmatched dimensions.
The following series of emails clearly show that the “unprecedented” warming was far from certain and that the CRU climatologists tried to hide any data that indicated the actual uncertainty (bold emphasis added in emails below).
Email: Keith Briffa to Mann, Jones and others, Sep 22, 1999, (Subject: “IPCC Revisions” [http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=136&filename=938018124.txt])
“I know there is pressure to present a
nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand
years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite
so simple. We don’t have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and
those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies ) some
unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I do
not think it wise that this issue be ignored in the chapter.
For the record, I do believe that the proxy data do show unusually
warm conditions in recent decades. I am not sure that this unusual warming
is so clear in the summer responsive data. I believe that the recent warmth
was probably matched about 1000 years ago. I do not believe that global
mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of
years as Mike appears to and I contend that that there is strong evidence
for major changes in climate over the Holocene (not Milankovich) that
require explanation and that could represent part of the current or future
background variability of our climate.”
Email: Phil Jones to Ray Bradley, Nov 16, 1999, (Subject: “Diagram for WMO Statement”).
[http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=154&filename=942777075.txt]
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
Email: Raymond Bradley to Frank Oldfield, Jul 10, 2000, (Subject: “IPCC Revisions”
[http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=172&filename=963233839.txt])
“the very strong trend in the 20th century calibration
period accounts for much of the success of our calibration and makes it
unlikely that we would be able be able to reconstruct such an extraordinary
period as the 1990s with much success
Furthermore, it may be that Mann et al simply don’t have the
long-term trend right, due to underestimation of low frequency info. …
Whether we have the 1000
year trend right is far less certain (& one reason why I hedge my bets on
whether there were any periods in Medieval times that might have been
“warm”, to the irritation of my co-authors!). So, possibly if you crank up
the trend over 1000 years, you find that the envelope of uncertainty is
comparable with at least some of the future scenarios, which of course begs
the question as to what the likely forcing was 1000 years ago. (My money is
firmly on an increase in solar irradiance, based on the 10-Be data..).
Another issue is whether we have estimated the totality of uncertainty in
the long-term data set used — maybe the envelope is really much larger,
due to inherent characteristics of the proxy data themselves….again this
would cause the past and future envelopes to overlap.”
Email: Chick Keller to Mann, Jones, Briffa, and others, Mar 2, 2001, (Subject: “Some thoughts on climate change proxy temperatures in the last 1,000 yrs” [http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=219&filename=983566497.txt]).
“Anyone looking at the records gets the impression that the temperature
amplitude for many individual records/sites over the past 1000 years or
so is often larger than 1°C. They thus recognize that natural
variability is unlikely to generate such large changes unless the sun
is having more effect than direct forcing, or there is some fortuitous
but detectable combination of forcings. And they see this as evidence
that the 0.8°C or so temperature rise in the 20th century is not all
that special.
The community, however, in making ensemble averages gets a much smaller
amplitude ~0.5°C. which they say shows that reasonable combinations of
solar direct plus volcanos and internal variability with the help of
THC can indeed explain this AND the 20th century warming is unique. …
We must address the question: what forcings
can generate large amplitude temperature variations over hundreds of
years, regional though they may be (and, could these occur at different
times in different regions due to shifting heat inertia patterns)? If
we can’t do this, then there might be something wrong with our
rationale that the average is low amplitude even though many regions
see high amplitude. This may be the nubbin of the disagreement, and
until we answer it, many careful scientists will decide the issue is
still unsettled and that indeed climate in the past may well have
varied as much or more than in the last hundred years.
One way would be to note that the temperature amplitude (1000 – 1950)
for each [proxy record] is ~1.5°C. Thus you could conclude that hemispheric/global
climate varied ay over a degree Celcius (although with regional differences)
Another way would be to average the records. The resulting temperature
amplitude would be smaller because extremes would cancel since
variability is large and each region’s extremes occur at different
times.
Thus, if people simply looked at several records they would get the
impression that temperature variations were large, ~1.5°C. Imagine
their surprise when they see that the ensemble averages you publish
have much smaller amplitude.
(Also, I note that most proxy temperature records claim timing errors
of +-50 years or so. What is the possibility that records are
cancelling each other out on variations in the hundred year frame due
simply to timing errors? as in hitting or missing C&L’s triple warming
peak 1000-1200 AD)”
Email exchange between: Michael Mann, Edward Cook and Tom Crowley, May 2, 2001, (Subject: “Hockey Stick” [http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=228&filename=988831541.txt]).
Cook to Mann: “My statement that the MWP appeared to be comparable to the
20th century does not imply, nor was it meant to imply, that somehow the
20th century temperature is not truly anomalous and being driven by
greenhouse gases. To quote from my email, “I would not claim (and nor would
Jan) that it exceeded the warmth of the late 20th century. We simply do not
have the precision or the proxy replication to say that yet.” Note the use
of the word “precision”. This clearly relates to the issue of error
variance and confidence intervals, a point that you clearly emphasize in
describing your series. Also note the emphasis on “late 20th century”. I
think that most researchers in global change research would agree that the
emergence of a clear greenhouse forcing signal has really only occurred
since after 1970. I am not debating this point, although I do think that
there still exists a signficant uncertainty as to the relative
contributions of natural and greenhouse forcing to warming during the past
20-30 years at least.”
Cook to Crowley: “These chronologies are not good at
preserving high-frquency climate information because of the scattering of
sites and the mix of different species, but the low-frequency patterns are
probably reflecting the same long-term changes in temperature. Jan than
averaged the 2 RCS chronologies together to produce a single chronology
extending back to AD 800. It has a very well defined Medieval Warm
Period – Little Ice Age – 20th Century Warming pattern, punctuated by strong
decadal fluctuations of inferred cold that correspond well with known histories of
neo-glacial advance in some parts of the NH …
the Esper series shows a very strong, even canonical, Medieval Warm Period – Little
Ice Age – 20th Century Warming pattern, which is largely missing from the
hockey stick. …
I would not claim (and nor would Jan) that it
exceeded the warmth of the late 20th century. We simply do not have the
precision or the proxy replication to say that yet. This being said, I do
find the dismissal of the Medieval Warm Period as a meaningful global
event to be grossly premature and probably wrong.”
Email exchange between: Michael Mann and John Christy, May 23, 2001, (Subject: “IPCC” [http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=230&filename=990718382.txt] Mann expressed disappointment that Christy went on John Stossel’s TV show).
Mann to Christy: “I’ll be very disturbed
if you turn out to have played into this in a way that is unfair to your
co-authors on chapter 2 [of the IPCC TAR], and your colleagues in general. This wouldn’t
have surprised me coming from certain individuals, but I honestly expected
more from you”
Christy to Mann: “In one of the pre-interviews they asked about the “Hockey Stick”. I
told them of my doubts about the intercentury precision of the record,
especially the early part, and that other records suggested the period
1000 years ago was warmer. …
I’ve been very disappointed with what has gone
on even with respect to some of the IPCC elders and their pronouncements
for forthcoming disasters. …
the dose of climate change disasters that have been
dumped on the average citizen is designed to be overly alarmist and
could lead us to make some bad policy decisions. (I’ve got a good story
about the writers of the TIME cover piece a couple of months ago that
proves they were not out to discuss the issue but to ignore science and
influence government.)
Regarding the IPCC. The IPCC TAR is good, but it is not perfect nor
sacred and is open to criticism as any document should be. …
Some of the story lines used to generate
high temperature changes are simply ridiculous.”
Email from Michael Mann to Tim Osborn, Keith Briffa and others, Apr 15, 2002, (Subject: “Your Letter to Science” [http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=268&filename=1018889093.txt]).
“We can maintain an honest difference about how well those points were
conveyed in the Science piece (for example, you can imagine how the statement in your piece
“This record has a smaller amplitude of century-to-century variability, and is consistently
at or near the upper limit of alternate records produced by other researchers” might indeed
have been interpreted as setting MBH99 apart as, in your words, an “outlier”).”
Email from Michael Mann to Phil Jones and others, Jun 4, 2003, (Subject: “Prospective Eos Piece?” [http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=319&filename=1054736277.txt]).
“it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet
have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back”
Email exchange between Keith Briffa and Edward Cook, Apr 12, 2005, (Subject: “Review” [http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=310&filename=1051638938.txt]).
Cook to Briffa: “as one is honest and open about evaluating the evidence (I have my doubts
about the MBH camp).
I just don’t want to get into an open critique
of the Esper data because it would just add fuel to the MBH attack squad. They tend to
work in their own somewhat agenda-filled ways.”
Briffa to Cook: “Bradley still regards the MWP as “mysterious” and “very incoherent” (his latest
pronouncement to me) based on the available data. Of course he and other members of the
MBH camp have a fundamental dislike for the very concept of the MWP, so I tend to view
their evaluations as starting out from a somewhat biased perspective”
Email between Phil Jones and John Christy, Jul 5, 2005, (Subject: “This and that”
[http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=544&filename=1120593115.txt]).
Jones to Christy: “I would like to see the climate change happen,
so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This
isn’t being political, it is being selfish.”
Jones appended to the email, text from Joe Barton (Chairman of the US House of Representatives) to Rajendra Pachauri (Chairman of the IPCC): “in recent peer-reviewed articles in Science, Geophysical Research Letters, Energy & Environment, among others, researchers question the results of this work. As these researchers find, based on the available information, the conclusions concerning temperature
histories – and hence whether warming in the 20th century is actually unprecedented -
cannot be supported by the Mann et. al. studies. In addition, we understand from the February 14
Journal and these other reports that researchers have failed to replicate the findings of these
studies, in part because of problems with the underlying data and the calculations used to
reach the conclusions.”
Thanks James, but let us leave the peer review to the scientists. Frankly, his work has been peer reviewed and found to withstand scrutiny. The AG is simply on a witch hunt, because he does not believe in science that does not meet his preconceived views. He is wasting our tax dollars on ridiculous efforts to tilt at windmills and, in the meantime, making us the laughstock of the nation.
Here is the text of Newsweek’s 1975 story on the trend toward global cooling. It may look foolish today, but in fact world temperatures had been falling since about 1940. It was around 1979 that they reversed direction and resumed the general rise that had begun in the 1880s, bringing us today back to around 1940 levels. A PDF of the original is available here. A fine short history of warming and cooling scares has recently been produced. It is available here.
We invite readers interested in finding out about both sides of the debate over global warming to visit our website: Climate Debate Daily — Denis Dutton
There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.
To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”
A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.
Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”
Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.
“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.
Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.
—PETER GWYNNE with bureau reports
Way to sabotage a thread, James. Is that your intent? MJB sends!
I don’t have time to read every article on here, but man, the Cooch is the really embarrassing this state. Every week there’s something new.
Ridiculous lawsuits, Ideology vs. Science, bare breasts on the state seal…
I can’t wait to see what mess this guy falls into next. But what is really repugnant is that there are people here that actively defend him!
Leave your response