Weather-Manmade Global Warming Link Builds, Study Says

You have a tendency to misconstrue statements people are making stove. Let me be crystal clear again.

I never said all scientists are making boocoodles of money from global warming.

When I say its a cash cow, I mean, definitely number two in websters "one regarded or exploited as a reliable source of money"

(emphasis mine there)

When a scientist lends support to the idea of man made global warming or climate change by connecting his or her research to it, it is a reliable source of funding. If I study the northern alaskan polar bear population, I may have trouble getting a grant. If I want to study the effects of global warming on said polar bear, it makes my chances of obtaining the grants that I need to make a living that much easier.

Scientists and researchers, while maybe (probably) not maliciously, have their scientific methods corrupted by the lure of easy grant money. Biting the hand that feeds is tough. Its akin to the occasional preacher who decides to preach stuff that's unpopular, knowing full well that their salary is dependent on people in the congregation not being uncomfortable with what's being said from the pulpit.

Regarding those who stand to make lots of money from AGW - certain corporations and individuals have positioned themselves to make money off of the legislation that would be passed if AGW can gain enough traction among the public. Gore is one, GE is another, Wall Street, Solyndra and other "solar energy" companies. The list goes on.

Now - global warming/climate change is not the only time this happens. Folks on CNBC do this all the time. You write an article under the guise of helping the mainstream investor, knowing that the article you write may or may not be good advice, but you are set up to profit on people taking your advice. Its called "talking your book".

The media/corporate/government conglomoration has a vested interest in AGW legislation. Corporations that can skirt the laws, or set themselves up to profit on new legislation, do so while lobbying the government to pass said legislation. Government likes the legislation because it gives the government more power over the populace. Meanwhile, those at the bottom of the latter are forced to pay more for cars that they don't want, they lose their jobs as small businesses can't absorb the increase energy costs, and more and more of the economic pie goes to the richest one percent.

If it were only the AGW situation where this occurred, I don't think I'd believe it. But almost all sweeping federal legislation stands to benefit large corporations and wall street, while harming the middle and lower classes. Like the healthcare law, which was lobbied for by the big insurance companies. They really like it when the government forces people to buy their shitty product. Single payer, while not my favorite option, is constitutional and doesn't further enrich insurance compaies. But the supposedly progressive obama admin cow towed to their corporate overlords, justlike Bush. Just like Clinton. Wash, rinse, repeat.

jmundie wrote:You have a tendency to misconstrue statements people are making stove. Let me be crystal clear again.

LOL well thanks for clarifying your opinions on the matter Mundie. I certainly wasn't trying to misconstrue your statements but you have to admit you were being a bit vague before. Scientists getting rich off global warming is a popular skeptic argument so forgive me if I made that assumption based on your cash cow comment.

When a scientist lends support to the idea of man made global warming or climate change by connecting his or her research to it, it is a reliable source of funding. If I study the northern alaskan polar bear population, I may have trouble getting a grant. If I want to study the effects of global warming on said polar bear, it makes my chances of obtaining the grants that I need to make a living that much easier.

Scientists and researchers, while maybe (probably) not maliciously, have their scientific methods corrupted by the lure of easy grant money. Biting the hand that feeds is tough. Its akin to the occasional preacher who decides to preach stuff that's unpopular, knowing full well that their salary is dependent on people in the congregation not being uncomfortable with what's being said from the pulpit.

I would never try to speak for all scientists, but anecdotally I've been involved in boots on the ground research with various universities, DOE, DOT, ORNL, and other groups. Some of this work has been related to renewable energy. Obviously we are always jumping for joy when we get grant funding, but there isn't any bias that I've seen in the methodologies or reporting of results even if they show something unfavorable. The fear of getting embarrassed by shoddy science is much bigger than the fear of not getting more funding. And guess what, grant money hasn't been rolling in very well in the past 2 or 3 years, some people have lost their jobs around here (even PhDs). That's just how it goes in this type of research.

So even though I'm sure there is some corruption out there, I'm not at all buying your assertion that a significant amount of scientific methods are are being corrupted just because this is a popular topic at the moment and the funding is securing a few jobs. Now if I'm wildly misconstruing your statements again then it isn't on purpose, I'm sure you'll set me straight.

I don't think there are people out there intentionally changing data to fit the hypothesis they want to prove. But I do think that the politicization of the issue has led to not enough science checking on other possible variables. I really have a hard time believing, just based on common sense, that the sun doesn't have more of an effect than CO2. I'll be the first to admit that I don't have time to learn enough for my opinion to be anything but conjecture based on an admittedly limit sample of knowledge that I have. Have there been studies to your knowledge that attempt to study the effects of the sun on climate? Or have we determined if there is a range of temperatures that te earth is supposed to stay in? I also don't understand how we can have so much confidence in our temperature measurements innate pre satellite era... Especially those based on free rings, ice cores and those sort of things. I mean, when were talking about a difference in a few degrees... Were trying to measure average temperatures based on these things, a little inaccuracy or consistent rounding errors can make a big difference.

Senile Hansen is at it again. He has no idea why the public is increasingly skeptical about AGW. Of course he repeats the inaccurate phrase "the science is now clear". I also like how he acts like there is this big "skeptics" fund that is fueling this. Of course we know that funding for AGW research far outpaces any funding for the "skeptical" side.

You know James, maybe people are waking up to your inaccurate science because temps over the last 15 years have stagnated and over the last 10 years have been trending downward. It also doesn't help that your crazy ass predictions have turned out to be crap. The gig is up and Hansen knows it.

James Hansen,director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies,who issued warnings about man-made climate change as early as the 1980s,said public skepticism is increasing even in the face of growing scientific acceptance of the reality of global warming.

“There is remarkable inconsistency between the scientific story and public story,” Hansen said in Edinburgh,Scotland,where he will receive the Edinburgh Medal at the Edinburgh International Science Festival this week,The Daily Telegraph reported.

Hansen said those opposed to major social and economic changes needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions were attempting to undermine the scientific evidence.
“The science has become stronger and stronger over the past five years while the public perception is has gone in completely the other direction. That is not an accident.

“There is a very concerted effort by people who would prefer to see business to continue as usual. They have been winning the public debate with the help of tremendous resources.”
Without a dramatic change in public opinion, Hansen said,he fears future generations will inherit a world where global warming is out of control.

“Our parents honestly did not know what the consequences of continued development and reliance on fossil fuels as an energy source,” he said. “We can no longer claim that, as the science is now clear.”

LINK TO FULL ARTICLE

snowdog wrote:Senile Hansen is at it again. He has no idea why the public is increasingly skeptical about AGW. Of course he repeats the inaccurate phrase "the science is now clear". I also like how he acts like there is this big "skeptics" fund that is fueling this. Of course we know that funding for AGW research far outpaces any funding for the "skeptical" side.

You know James, maybe people are waking up to your inaccurate science because temps over the last 15 years have stagnated and over the last 10 years have been trending downward. It also doesn't help that your crazy ass predictions have turned out to be crap. The gig is up and Hansen knows it.

James Hansen,director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies,who issued warnings about man-made climate change as early as the 1980s,said public skepticism is increasing even in the face of growing scientific acceptance of the reality of global warming.

“There is remarkable inconsistency between the scientific story and public story,” Hansen said in Edinburgh,Scotland,where he will receive the Edinburgh Medal at the Edinburgh International Science Festival this week,The Daily Telegraph reported.

Hansen said those opposed to major social and economic changes needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions were attempting to undermine the scientific evidence.
“The science has become stronger and stronger over the past five years while the public perception is has gone in completely the other direction. That is not an accident.

“There is a very concerted effort by people who would prefer to see business to continue as usual. They have been winning the public debate with the help of tremendous resources.”
Without a dramatic change in public opinion, Hansen said,he fears future generations will inherit a world where global warming is out of control.

“Our parents honestly did not know what the consequences of continued development and reliance on fossil fuels as an energy source,” he said. “We can no longer claim that, as the science is now clear.”

LINK TO FULL ARTICLE

Not sure I get the Hansen hate. Remind me again how his 1980's projections were crap?





Considering when they were made, I'd say they didn't miss the mark by a whole heck of a lot.

Stovepipe wrote:Not sure I get the Hansen hate. Remind me again how his 1980's projections were crap? Considering when they were made, I'd say they didn't miss the mark by a whole heck of a lot.

The guy is a colossal wind bag. Did you see my other post about him where he tried to equate AGW to slavery? It's the arrogance about which he carries himself acting as though this hypothesis is proven when in fact it isn't. It isn't even valid to call it a theory.

In the graph below you can see that observed CO2 closely matches his Scenario A but temps currently are trending towards his Scenario C. In general he was right, it warmed over the last 30 years but it wasn't due to his CO2 assumptions.

Poor Jimmy Hansen. He is up against those big rich oil companies out to disprove his hypothesis. Uhh whats that Jim? You made $750,000 outside of your NASA pay in 2010? Yeeeeeah. Hansen is a joke and a fraud. Keep ringing that alarmism bell, no telling how much money he makes every time he rings that bell.

Government bureaucrat James Hansen pulled down up to $750,000 last year in speeches and prize money. The American Tradition Institute reported: “As it waits for the resolution of its Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, which seeks the outside employment permission records of global warming activist Dr. James Hansen, American Tradition Institute’s Environmental Law Center has received the belatedly filed 2010 public financial disclosure of the renowned director of the NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.”

snowdog wrote:

Stovepipe wrote:Not sure I get the Hansen hate. Remind me again how his 1980's projections were crap? Considering when they were made, I'd say they didn't miss the mark by a whole heck of a lot.

The guy is a colossal wind bag. Did you see my other post about him where he tried to equate AGW to slavery? It's the arrogance about which he carries himself acting as though this hypothesis is proven when in fact it isn't. It isn't even valid to call it a theory.

In the graph below you can see that observed CO2 closely matches his Scenario A but temps currently are trending towards his Scenario C. In general he was right, it warmed over the last 30 years but it wasn't due to his CO2 assumptions.

From what I've read, his warming projections were too high due to the climate sensitivity parameters in the old NASA model being too high. That model used a sensitivity of about 4.2 degrees per doubling of CO2. To match reality it would have needed to be about 3.4 degrees. His study was useful in determining that a lower value was more realistic.

The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report summarized climate sensitivity as "likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values."

I won't speak to the guy's personality or his personal finances, but he has contributed a great deal to climate research over the years.

Why is it that some of those at the top of the AGW movement support global depopulation? Hansen is a whack job.

James Hansen says Keith Farnish has it right,

“Keith Farnish has it right: time has practically run out, and the ’system’ is the problem,” wrote Dr. James Hansen on the Amazon website. “Governments are under the thumb of fossil fuel special interests – they will not look after our and the planet’s well-being until we force them to do so, and that is going to require enormous effort.

What does Farnish have right? Ohhh you know depopulation and taking us back to the pre-industrial era...

“In short, the greatest immediate risk to the population living in the conditions created by Industrial Civilization is the population itself. Civilization has created the perfect conditions for a terrible tragedy on the kind of scale never seen before in the history of humanity. That is one reason for there to be fewer people,” he writes.

And how is the collapse of industrial civilization to be achieved? By indiscriminate acts of sabotage and eco-terrorism.

“Unloading essentially means the removal of an existing burden: for instance, removing grazing domesticated animals, razing cities to the ground, blowing up dams and switching off the greenhouse gas emissions machine. The process of ecological unloading is an accumulation of many of the things I have already explained in this chapter, along with an (almost certainly necessary) element of sabotage,” writes Farnish.

Considering the inevitable energy decent post peak oil, we may not have much choice but to go back to pre-industrial age type living even taking climate out of the picture. At the very least, barring major technological advances, we will be forced to change the way we live in a major way.

We may not have a choice at some point in the future, but I don't understand those who want to willfully take us there before it is time. Plus their argument for this is more based on what they think we are doing to the environment, not running out of energy.

I had a little time to kill so I thought I'd go take a peek at the Climate Change forum over at American. Whoa boy. Some of these guys aren't playing around and they know their shiat. If someone wanders in there spouting pseudoscience they'll get their ass handed to them in short order. Anyway, there are some threads with some very good up-to-date information and links to great resources on the subject. Worth a look when you have some time to kill and feel like reading.

http://www.americanwx.com/bb/index.php/forum/18-climate-change/

I've read their stuff in the past. What I find interesting is when a "skeptic" mentions the sun, the AGW proponent throws back TSI data. Yet TSI data has only been measured since 1978 and it isn't the most reliable data out there. Even NASA admits there are many problems with this data. In 2011 they put a new monitor up there and hopefully the data will be more reliable. I think it was called the Glory TIM.

Meh...if you disagree with one of the red taggers over there you're considered scum...Horrible way to run a wx forum IMO.

Toot wrote:Meh...if you disagree with one of the red taggers over there your considered scum...Horrible way to run a wx forum IMO.

A few of the red taggers have been soundly ripped apart in that climate change forum.

This is more of what you can expect if the Hansen types get their way. I think Jefferson had a good quote about mega-cities and stacking people on top of each other.

Metropolitan area governments are adopting plans that would require most new housing to be built at 20 or more to the acre, which is at least five times the traditional quarter acre per house. State and regional planners also seek to radically restructure urban areas, forcing much of the new hyperdensity development into narrowly confined corridors.

In San Francisco and San Jose, for example, the Association of Bay Area Governments has proposed that only 3% of new housing built by 2035 would be allowed on or beyond the "urban fringe"—where current housing ends and the countryside begins. Over two-thirds of the housing for the projected two million new residents in these metro areas would be multifamily—that is, apartments and condo complexes—and concentrated along major thoroughfares such as Telegraph Avenue in the East Bay and El Camino Real on the Peninsula.

For its part, the Southern California Association of Governments wants to require more than one-half of the new housing in Los Angeles County and five other Southern California counties to be concentrated in dense, so-called transit villages, with much of it at an even higher 30 or more units per acre.

To understand how dramatic a change this would be, consider that if the planners have their way, 68% of new housing in Southern California by 2035 would be condos and apartment complexes. This contrasts with Census Bureau data showing that single-family, detached homes represented more than 80% of the increase in the region's housing stock between 2000 and 2010.

The campaign against suburbia is the result of laws passed in 2006 (the Global Warming Solutions Act) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and in 2008 (the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act) on urban planning. The latter law, as the Los Angeles Times aptly characterized it, was intended to "control suburban sprawl, build homes closer to downtown and reduce commuter driving, thus decreasing climate-changing greenhouse gas emissions." In short, to discourage automobile use.

LINK TO FULL ARTICLE

snowdog wrote:This is more of what you can expect if the Hansen types get their way. I think Jefferson had a good quote about mega-cities and stacking people on top of each other.

Metropolitan area governments are adopting plans that would require most new housing to be built at 20 or more to the acre, which is at least five times the traditional quarter acre per house. State and regional planners also seek to radically restructure urban areas, forcing much of the new hyperdensity development into narrowly confined corridors.

In San Francisco and San Jose, for example, the Association of Bay Area Governments has proposed that only 3% of new housing built by 2035 would be allowed on or beyond the "urban fringe"—where current housing ends and the countryside begins. Over two-thirds of the housing for the projected two million new residents in these metro areas would be multifamily—that is, apartments and condo complexes—and concentrated along major thoroughfares such as Telegraph Avenue in the East Bay and El Camino Real on the Peninsula.

For its part, the Southern California Association of Governments wants to require more than one-half of the new housing in Los Angeles County and five other Southern California counties to be concentrated in dense, so-called transit villages, with much of it at an even higher 30 or more units per acre.

To understand how dramatic a change this would be, consider that if the planners have their way, 68% of new housing in Southern California by 2035 would be condos and apartment complexes. This contrasts with Census Bureau data showing that single-family, detached homes represented more than 80% of the increase in the region's housing stock between 2000 and 2010.

The campaign against suburbia is the result of laws passed in 2006 (the Global Warming Solutions Act) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and in 2008 (the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act) on urban planning. The latter law, as the Los Angeles Times aptly characterized it, was intended to "control suburban sprawl, build homes closer to downtown and reduce commuter driving, thus decreasing climate-changing greenhouse gas emissions." In short, to discourage automobile use.

LINK TO FULL ARTICLE

I haven't read the full article yet, but generally speaking, I don't have a problem with this. Serious changes need to take place in urban planning for a variety of reasons not just to reduce automobile use (although that is a big one). Our cities and transportation system were designed with cheap fuel in mind. It's terribly inefficient and isn't sustainable in the long run. There is a very good documentary that everyone should watch on this subject:

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-end-of-suburbia/

It's several years old but helps to put peak oil and the age of suburbia into perspective.

I'd like to clarify something. Earlier in the thread I said there there was no real debate on AGW. What meant by that was that there is no real debate that fossil fuels are contributing to the warming the planet. The real debate is about climate sensitivity and to what extent man's influence is. Obviously there are many factors in play here and it's certainly possible that other natural variations in climate could counter balance the warming effect that CO2 is having (we can't say for sure what the sun will do with any real accuracy). But there is a ton of scientific evidence that GHGs can significantly affect the balance in a very real way and when you consider some of the potential feedback loops such as additional methane being unleashed due to warming then it becomes obvious that serious attention should be paid to this.

I just felt the need to clarify my earlier statement as I wasn't trying to squelch discussion or "debate".

I don't know if I agree that peak oil is here...yet. I think that is still being debated somewhat. Even if it is, there are other options vs strict zoning laws. Nashville has been experimenting with mass transit for the past few years and it has done very well. The Nashville Star train makes 3 or 4 roundtrips in the morning and afternoon, but it is only available on the east side of town. Lebanon to Downtown. I've actually considered riding it because it would save me about $150 a month in gas. Also if Nashville is any metric with other cities, bus ridership has gone through the roof recently.

snowdog wrote:I've read their stuff in the past. What I find interesting is when a "skeptic" mentions the sun, the AGW proponent throws back TSI data. Yet TSI data has only been measured since 1978 and it isn't the most reliable data out there. Even NASA admits there are many problems with this data. In 2011 they put a new monitor up there and hopefully the data will be more reliable. I think it was called the Glory TIM.

I assume you are in part referring to this thread:

http://www.americanwx.com/bb/index.php/topic/33833-role-of-the-sun-in-climate-change/

I found that discussion very educational as well as entertaining. Don Sutherland FTW.

Well that was one, but there are others. They (those in favor of AGW) use the TSI quite a bit on that site. I've read their climate change forum for a few years now, always entertaining and always educational. I think one person said, as you have said also, that there has been little change in the Sun since 1950. When actually there has been quite a bit of change since 1950 in sunspots. As far as TSI, like I said in the post you quoted, I have little faith in the TSI data. I hope that changes with the new monitor they have up there now and it should be able to shed some light on the credibility of past data as well as provide good data in the future.

The article below describes and shows why many people believe that AGW could be a hoax. Why the secrecy? Why is UVa spending a million dollars to hide this mans emails? Why didn't UVa spend a million dollars to hide "skeptics" emails? The whole thing stinks and AGW proponents have tried their hardest to diminish the fallout of Climategate.

If there is nothing to hide then why hide it? If Global Warming is a slam dunk then why are scientists fabricating and manipulating data? Why, if the government is so inclined to be slow to come around to climate change as the AGW movement suggests, is a government institution going to such great lengths to keep these emails from public record?

In 1999, Mann joined the U. of Virginia faculty as an assistant professor and left for Penn State six years later after failing to gain tenure. In fact, he was a member of my Department of Environmental Sciences, although we did not overlap.

In 2010, Virginia's newly elected Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, following Virginia FATA (Fraud Against Taxpayer Act) law, issued a Civil Investigative Demand on the university for Mann's e-mails, work notes, and other documentation. The university, a state-supported institution, has resisted this demand, citing "academic freedom" and similar excuses. They have employed a private law firm and spent about $1 million so far.

I am quite disappointed by my university's opposition to releasing Mann's e-mails to Virginia's AG. Those e-mails could clear up the mystery of "Mike's Nature trick" and reveal hidden data. I am told that no objection was raised by UVa when Greenpeace requested the e-mails of skeptical faculty -- including mine -- under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). So much for the university's "principled defense" of academic freedom.

Virginia's Supreme Court has now turned down AG Cuccinelli's demand, based on a technicality in the interpretation of the Virginia law. But the American Tradition Institute is trying to extract Mann's e-mails from UVa, using the FOIA. Their chance for success is good -- particularly since not only does the university now admits that some 12,000 e-mails exist (previously claimed to have been deleted) -- but it has also released these e-mails to Michael Mann, even though he is no longer a faculty member.

LINK TO FULL ARTICLE

snowdog wrote:The article below describes and shows why many people believe that AGW could be a hoax. Why the secrecy? Why is UVa spending a million dollars to hide this mans emails? Why didn't UVa spend a million dollars to hide "skeptics" emails? The whole thing stinks and AGW proponents have tried their hardest to diminish the fallout of Climategate.

If there is nothing to hide then why hide it? If Global Warming is a slam dunk then why are scientists fabricating and manipulating data? Why, if the government is so inclined to be slow to come around to climate change as the AGW movement suggests, is a government institution going to such great lengths to keep these emails from public record?

In 1999, Mann joined the U. of Virginia faculty as an assistant professor and left for Penn State six years later after failing to gain tenure. In fact, he was a member of my Department of Environmental Sciences, although we did not overlap.

In 2010, Virginia's newly elected Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, following Virginia FATA (Fraud Against Taxpayer Act) law, issued a Civil Investigative Demand on the university for Mann's e-mails, work notes, and other documentation. The university, a state-supported institution, has resisted this demand, citing "academic freedom" and similar excuses. They have employed a private law firm and spent about $1 million so far.

I am quite disappointed by my university's opposition to releasing Mann's e-mails to Virginia's AG. Those e-mails could clear up the mystery of "Mike's Nature trick" and reveal hidden data. I am told that no objection was raised by UVa when Greenpeace requested the e-mails of skeptical faculty -- including mine -- under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). So much for the university's "principled defense" of academic freedom.

Virginia's Supreme Court has now turned down AG Cuccinelli's demand, based on a technicality in the interpretation of the Virginia law. But the American Tradition Institute is trying to extract Mann's e-mails from UVa, using the FOIA. Their chance for success is good -- particularly since not only does the university now admits that some 12,000 e-mails exist (previously claimed to have been deleted) -- but it has also released these e-mails to Michael Mann, even though he is no longer a faculty member.

LINK TO FULL ARTICLE

I fail to see how one man's emails have anything whatsoever to do with climate science as a whole. If people believe that there is some big hidden secret and widespread data fabrication/manipulation based on this then they'll believe anything.

Stovepipe wrote:

snowdog wrote:The article below describes and shows why many people believe that AGW could be a hoax. Why the secrecy? Why is UVa spending a million dollars to hide this mans emails? Why didn't UVa spend a million dollars to hide "skeptics" emails? The whole thing stinks and AGW proponents have tried their hardest to diminish the fallout of Climategate.

If there is nothing to hide then why hide it? If Global Warming is a slam dunk then why are scientists fabricating and manipulating data? Why, if the government is so inclined to be slow to come around to climate change as the AGW movement suggests, is a government institution going to such great lengths to keep these emails from public record?

In 1999, Mann joined the U. of Virginia faculty as an assistant professor and left for Penn State six years later after failing to gain tenure. In fact, he was a member of my Department of Environmental Sciences, although we did not overlap.

In 2010, Virginia's newly elected Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, following Virginia FATA (Fraud Against Taxpayer Act) law, issued a Civil Investigative Demand on the university for Mann's e-mails, work notes, and other documentation. The university, a state-supported institution, has resisted this demand, citing "academic freedom" and similar excuses. They have employed a private law firm and spent about $1 million so far.

I am quite disappointed by my university's opposition to releasing Mann's e-mails to Virginia's AG. Those e-mails could clear up the mystery of "Mike's Nature trick" and reveal hidden data. I am told that no objection was raised by UVa when Greenpeace requested the e-mails of skeptical faculty -- including mine -- under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). So much for the university's "principled defense" of academic freedom.

Virginia's Supreme Court has now turned down AG Cuccinelli's demand, based on a technicality in the interpretation of the Virginia law. But the American Tradition Institute is trying to extract Mann's e-mails from UVa, using the FOIA. Their chance for success is good -- particularly since not only does the university now admits that some 12,000 e-mails exist (previously claimed to have been deleted) -- but it has also released these e-mails to Michael Mann, even though he is no longer a faculty member.

LINK TO FULL ARTICLE

I fail to see how one man's emails have anything whatsoever to do with climate science as a whole. If people believe that there is some big hidden secret and widespread data fabrication/manipulation based on this then they'll believe anything.

Plenty of people apparently believe that big oil is behind the entire skeptic movement. Is that not just as much of a conspiracy? It appears that Greenpeace obtained emails of skeptic professors because they believe there is a conspiracy... why the double standard stove?

Stovepipe wrote:I fail to see how one man's emails have anything whatsoever to do with climate science as a whole. If people believe that there is some big hidden secret and widespread data fabrication/manipulation based on this then they'll believe anything.

It is not just one man. It would be like saying the President is just one man and his emails would not make or break an issue. Mann is a big dog in the AGW movement and his graphs, testimony, etc are used by the AGW movement to effect political change. So don't act like he is just another guy. He is also suspected of manipulating data so his emails would be very beneficial in determining this. Why is UVa spending so much money to protect those emails?