The infamous Madoff Ponzi scheme cost $50 billion. Now put this into context with what the U.S. government has blown on policies related to climate change - over $79 billion since 1989. Madoff is in jail, Michael Mann isn’t-yet. So let's look at the latest legal hullabaloo.
The Climategate scandal is a Ponzi scheme with far greater global ramifications for us all. But how are we dealing with the willfully corrupt acts of a few key individuals in the most senior posts?
The two lead scientists in this most grotesque scam, Michael Mann of Penn. State University and British Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research (CRU), discussed manipulation of data to 'hide the decline' in global temperatures. Both men and their employers benefited to the tune of tens of millions of dollars for their complicity in this scam.
Jones, rather than be convicted of fraud, stymied Freedom of Information requests then destroyed his data. He avoided criminal prosecution on a mere technicality- the British government conceded the statute of limitations had expired.
Article continues below this advert:
Jones is remorseful, broken and discredited; Mann stubbornly refuses to quit his shenanigans. His hubris remains intact. An expedient American government, just like the British, has stalled in implementing the most serious of fraud charges. Their likely embarrassment is just too great to even contemplate action.
The facts are well documented: according to Mann’s fudged graph, the hottest period in modern history was NOT the generally balmy era between 900 and 1300 but the late 20th century. The world’s skeptical community diligently sought access to Mann’s calculations to check how he came to his incongruous conclusions. His conclusions were swallowed whole by world leaders intent on pursuing an international cap and trade strategy. Almost overnight he had succeeded in re-writing a wealth of historical peer-reviewed studies.
Thus Mann was instrumental in getting the fear-machine cranked up so that pro-green political advocates were able to ‘Create A Crisis, Alert the people, Offer a Solution.’
In 2008 Mann published another paper to bolster his 'hockey stick' claims in response to all the controversy surrounding his first graph. A Mann co-author and source of tree ring data (Professor Keith Briffa of CRU) used one of the tree ring data series (Yamal in Russia) in a paper published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in 2008, which has a strict data archiving policy. Thanks to that policy, acclaimed climate analyst, Steve McIntyre fought and won access to that data.
On his Climate Audit website Mcintyre broke the story that Mann’s graph was bogus.
The graph portrayed an ominous scary red line shooting upwards. The black one, heading downwards, represents the less worrisome scientific reality.
Because of these facts, I say in my own words, not anyone else’s, Michael Mann is a crooked junk scientist and is rightly derided as a charlatan.
Mann, full of bitterness and frustration laments the failure of that Grand Plan to conspire in the dismantling of western economies. Now constantly taunted by ridicule, he has threatened to sue the makers of a video mocking him.
Here are my thoughts on this:
Any supposed civil lawsuit brought by Mann against the Minnesotan makers of the YouTube ‘Hide the Decline’ video would prove most disadvantageous to our puffed up plaintiff.
In fact, such a foolhardy venture is perhaps the best way of publicly exposing Mann’s alleged data fraud.
If Mann takes a punt in the courts then his meta data and source codes used in his graphs are germane. The rules of discovery are clear; the respondents will be entitled to full disclosure of any and all evidence pertaining to the issues so that the trier of fact may determine the credibility of the allegations. But Mann is ever so touchy about who sees his dubious tree ring numbers. In response to his critics he has stated:
“I have made available all of the research data that I am required to under United States policy as set by the National Science Foundation…. I maintain the right to decline to release any computer codes, which are my intellectual property...”
This gambit won’t fly for Mann in a defamation suit. The gravamen of this controversy is that Mann has persisted in refusing any other scientists to validate his computer codes. Insofar as Mann, a supposed scientist, refuses to permit other scientists to verify his results via independent analysis of such codes, he has thereby fueled public doubt about his integrity. He is thus the architect of his own misfortune.
As legal scholar Susan Kuzma (1992) tells us:
“In the long run, the more corrosive force [of scientific misconduct] is the undermining of public confidence in an important public institution and the engendering of a cynical perception that the reporting and the funding of scientific research is a rigged game. Criminal prosecution plays a valuable role in demonstrating a commitment to absolute integrity in this important arena.” (1.)
Unless the dodgy Penn. State professor divulges his computer codes that underpin his junk science no civil court will entertain him. Barking out his toothless threats scares no one. This fraudster is now a figure of ridicule and is set to go down in history is one of science’s worst abominations.
I’ll call Mann a climate crook all day long: let him sue me, I’m game.
(1.) Sovacool, B. K., ‘Criminalization and Due Process to Reduce Scientific Misconduct,’ The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 5, Issue 5 September 2005
Short bio: John O'Sullivan is a legal advocate and writer who for several years has litigated against government corruption and conspiracy cases in both the US and Britain. Website: http://www.suite101.com/profile.cfm/johnosullivan