Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent

USA Today‘s house editorial today bemoans the fact that Climategate “gives ammunitiion to the skeptics,” but concludes that “the overwhelming scientific consensus remains that the Earth is warming, largely because of human activity, with potentially calamitous consequences involving melting ice caps, rising sea levels and shifting agricultural patterns.”

So do they get a skeptic to fill the daily “Another View” slot they offer to rebut their editorial? No — they get another alarmist! Under the panicky-but-now-tired headline “We need to act quickly!”, Melanie Fitzpatrick of the Union of Scientists Concerned About Their Grant Funding writes:

Now that the United States and other countries are finally moving to seriously address global warming, polluter-funded front groups and their allies in Congress are making exaggerated claims about stolen e-mails from climate scientists in a last ditch effort to derail action.

I guess Ms. Melanie missed the memos about the vast wealth that flows to alarmist science and environmental pressure groups, which they extract both from taxpayers and extort from those same “polluters” she’s talking about. And what a shock — she’s yet another politically disinterested, principled scientist who contributes to the Huffington Post.

This is interesting. Watch this short video (not able to embed) from the good guys at AccuWeather and early in the segment they show a map that illustrates the “historical chance of a white Christmas” for the entire continental U.S. If you look carefully you will see that Houston is on the cusp of “none,” or no chance.

I guess they should have asked about their chances for snow in the nation’s 4th-largest city on December 4th. Of course this is not evidence that discredits global warming trends. After all, it’s only a local event, and localized phenomena are only capable of proving global warming, not disproving it.

A lot of us have more than one email account — one for personal use, and one for work. We do that for several reasons. We want to keep our private lives separate from our professional activities. We don’t want bosses and co-workers to know everything that goes on at home. Employers have the right to know what staff members are doing with their work-time and company resources — which includes official email accounts — so those things are subject to scrutiny. If we work for the government (and therefore taxpayers), then we are subject to even greater oversight. So we isolate our personal electronic correspondence and in most cases employers don’t bother to ask about it — and if they did, they’d have some pretty upset employees on their hands.

So here we have Penn State University Climategate-ologist Michael Money-Mann outraged over outsiders viewing his “private” correspondence:

“It’s an 11th-hour smear campaign where they’ve stolen personal e-mails from scientists, mined them for single words or phrases that can be taken out of context and misrepresent what scientists are saying,” said Michael Mann, director of Pennsylvania State University’s Earth Systems Science Center, in a teleconference Friday with reporters.

Unless it’s his own employer taking a look:

Mann said he welcomed the inquiry.

“They are just reviewing the facts and (looking) into whether there is any validity to the specious claims, in my view, that are being made,” he said in a phone interview Wednesday night. “That’s exactly what they should be doing, and I am fully in support of that.”

Where’s the outrage, Mike? If these truly were personal correspondence, you’d have a right to be upset and insist that no one view your emails. Of course that’s not the case — you work for a public university, and sent messages to public university addresses of other scientists. It’s more likely that you are expecting Penn State to cover your rear end. You’re probably right.

Let’s break down the alarmist-activist-Leftist-scientists’ primary line of defense, helpfully parroted by the formerly mainstream media: That “they’ve stolen personal emails.”

1. “They’ve” — implies someone from the group of skeptics they disdain was the one to pilfer and expose their messages. But CRU, Mann, and the rest of their cabal have no idea who exposed the records.

2. “stolen” — CRU, Mann, etc. cannot prove the records were extracted by an outside entity. They may have been exposed by a whistleblower. Those types are often celebrated as heroes when they scandals are revealed.

3. “personal” — We’ve already addressed that above and elsewhere.

4. “emails” — yes, and so much more. They don’t even want to talk about the corrupted source code, which a software engineer — who is not a climate skeptic — interviewed by BBC said was, let’s say, less than professional.

But expect the made-up story of “stolen personal emails” to continue — at least until they are discredited about that as well.

Pennsylvania State University’s Climategate guy, hockey stick creator Michael Mann, has already come under scrutiny from the school over suspicions that he manipulated data to fit his global warming alarmism faith. For good measure state Senator Jeffrey Piccola, chairman of the Education Committee, wants to make sure PSU president Graham Spanier follows through, as he explained in a letter he sent today:

The allegations of intellectual and scientific fraud like those made against Dr. Mann are serious against anybody involved in academics, but the impact in this case is significantly elevated. The work of Dr. Mann and other scientists at the CRU is being used to develop economic and environmental policies in states and countries across the world. Considering the saliency of the work being conducted by the CRU, anything short of the pursuit of absolute science cannot be accepted or tolerated.

Piccola’s take-home message for Spanier is if his investigation is a whitewash, then the PA Senate Education Committee will conduct its own look-see-find.

Hat tip: Commonwealth Foundation, which on Monday made their own request for an investigation of Mann.

Dr. Ben Santer, one of the climate modelers who works on the public dime at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, has called all his comrades to join him in a weep-fest over the “crime” of Climategate. Of course this bully who wanted to “beat the crap out of” former Virginia state climatologist Pat Michaels thinks he’s the victim, as he explains in a letter to “colleagues and friends:”

I am sure that by now, all of you are aware of the hacking incident which recently took place at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU). This was a criminal act. Over 3,000 emails and documents were stolen. The identity of the hacker or hackers is still unknown.

The emails represented private correspondence between CRU scientists and scientists at climate research centers around the world. Dozens of the stolen emails are from over a decade of my own personal correspondence with Professor Phil Jones, the Director of CRU.

How the Climategate emails were extracted from the UEA CRUnit may or may not have been a “criminal act” — that has still not been determined. But Dr. Thug clearly doesn’t understand how this whole public/private nature of correspondence is categorized. Let me explain.

Private emails between two or more parties: These are sent and delivered between personal email accounts such as those set up for individuals and private businesses on services like Google and Yahoo! You know, like the personal accounts that former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin utilized last year that were illegally hacked.

Public emails subject to open scrutiny and broad dissemination: These only need to be sent by, or delivered to, at least one email address that is a public, government institution funded by taxpayers. An example in Great Britain would be the University of East Anglia, where Phil Jones was once director of the CRU. Another example, in the U.S., would be the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, where every employee has a “” email address. That “dot-gov” suffix is a dead giveaway.

I suppose there are exceptions in the law for LLNL and other government agencies to withhold documents and emails from the public for national security purposes. Much as Santer might like to think global warming is one of those exemptions, I doubt he could successfully make a legal case for that.

So Santer’s messages to Jones and others at UEA were not “private” or “personal” correspondence. If he wanted them to be, he should not have used his email account with his official LLNL affiliation in the signature line. He should know better, since LLNL makes clear those distinctions. But if he did want to communicate with Jones on that level, I doubt he could have conducted official government business — such as discussion of climate data — on a Google account. That would have been evading public scrutiny. A Santer-Jones Google exchange would have had to been about the merits of U.S. vs. European football or something like that.

One last thing about Santer: he might want to review LLNL’s “Mission, Vision and Values” statement “that guides the way we accomplish our work and the way we interact with each other, our colleagues, sponsors and stakeholders, and the public.” Included among the values:

  • Integrity and responsible stewardship of the public trust
  • Intense competition of ideas with respect for individuals
  • Treating each other with dignity
  • A high-quality, motivated workforce with diverse ideas, skills, and backgrounds

How the desire to “beat the crap out of” someone who is a fellow scientist, and who is also a taxpayer who helps pay his salary, is in accord with these above values is something I’d love to hear Santer explain.

But from the looks of his whiny letter, he’s of a completely different mindset. He thinks that while he’s on the public payroll that he has the right to intimidate dissenters, and to keep everything he writes in his LLNL role a secret. Clearly he hates accountability to his bosses.

Looks like there’s no other choice for him, then, but to quit.

What does Senate Environment and Public Works chairwoman (I assume she doesn’t want to be called “chairman”) Barbara Boxer call Climategate?

“You call it ‘Climategate’; I call it ‘E-mail-theft-gate,'” she said during a committee meeting. “Whatever it is, the main issue is, Are we facing global warming or are we not? I’m looking at these e-mails, that, even though they were stolen, are now out in the public.”

Boxer showed her passion for law-and-order at today’s committee meeting.

Boxer said her committee may hold hearings into the matter as its top Republican, Sen. James Inhofe (Okla.), has asked for, but that a criminal probe would be part of any such hearings.

“We may well have a hearing on this, we may not. We may have a briefing for senators, we may not,” Boxer said. “Part of our looking at this will be looking at a criminal activity which could have well been coordinated.

“This is a crime,” Boxer said.

Considering that a lot of Climategate has to do with the muzzling of scientists that hold views contrary to alarmism, you might think the honorific-conscious senator would be concerned about the exclusion of their research from professional journals. After all, nearly four years ago she demanded an investigation into the Bush administration’s alleged silencing of NASA’s James Hansen:

In light of recent reports that the Bush Administration attempted to severely restrict NASA’s top climate scientist Dr. James E. Hansen from discussing his scientific findings on global warming, U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) today urged two Senate Committees to investigate the extent of the Administration’s efforts to censor scientists for political purposes.

Got that? TWO committees!! For ONE guy! Who lied about it!

Since watching the Climategate scandal explode a week before Thanksgiving, debris from the mushroom cloud has rained upon the earth, and there are hints that some folks (other than me and my fellow climate realists) are getting curious about how the alarmists are funded. It used to be the narrative of the formerly mainstream media, when they deemed it worthy to include perspective from the “skeptic” side, always came with a “financed by Big Oil” disclaimer — whether it was true or not. Meanwhile the warmists’ financial gain from the game was irrelevant in the media’s eyes.

It’s been widely reported in the blogosphere about the millions of dollars in grants that East Anglia CRUnit director Phil Jones collected for his climate modeling, but so far I haven’t seen much detail about his fellow email correspondents. What about ’em?

Inarguably the next-largest culprit is Michael Mann, Mr. Nature Trick, who is not to be confused with the Nature Boy or the other “Heat“-making Mann. He has had his grants available for public viewing for a while, so I’m surprised I’ve not seen those spread around the ‘Net. They are right there listed in his curriculum vitae.

In these days of skulduggery and hack-for-a-hack frontier justice on the Wild, Wild, Web, it’s a good idea to replicate things. You never know when public records on display at a public university might suddenly disappear. So for the benefit of those interested in climate science transparency and even Mr. Mann himself (“I would be disappointed if the university wasn’t doing all [it] can to get as much information as possible” about the controversy), I will list here his funded proposals since 2006 from his CV:

2009-2013 Quantifying the influence of environmental temperature on transmission of vector-borne diseases, NSF-EF [Principal Investigator: M. Thomas; Co-Investigators: R.G. Crane, M.E. Mann, A. Read, T. Scott (Penn State Univ.)] $1,884,991

2009-2012 Toward Improved Projections of the Climate Response to Anthropogenic Forcing: Combining Paleoclimate Proxy and Instrumental Observations with an Earth System Model, NSF-ATM [Principal Investigator: M.E. Mann; Co-Investigators: K. Keller (Penn State Univ.), A. Timmermann (Univ. of Hawaii)] $541,184

2008-2011 A Framework for Probabilistic Projections of Energy-Relevant Streamflow Indices, DOE [Principal Investigator: T. Wagener; Co-Investigators: M. Mann, R. Crane, K. Freeman (Penn State Univ.)] $330,000

2008-2009 AMS Industry/Government Graduate Fellowship (Anthony Sabbatelli), American Meteorological Society [Principal Investigator: M.E. Mann (Penn State Univ.)] $23,000

2006-2009 Climate Change Collective Learning and Observatory Network in Ghana, USAID [Principal Investigator: P. Tschakert; Co-Investigators: M.E. Mann, W. Easterling (Penn State Univ.)] $759,928

2006-2009 Analysis and testing of proxy-based climate reconstructions, NSF-ATM [Principal Investigator: M.E. Mann (Penn State Univ.)] $459,000

2006-2009 Constraining the Tropical Pacific’s Role in Low-Frequency Climate Change of the Last Millennium, NOAA-Climate Change Data & Detection (CCDD) Program [Principal Investigators: K. Cobb (Georgia Tech Univ.), N. Graham (Hydro. Res. Center), M.E. Mann (Penn State Univ.), Hoerling (NOAA Clim. Dyn. Center), Alexander (NOAA Clim. Dyn. Center)] PSU award (M.E. Mann): $68,065

2006-2007 Acquisition of high-performance computing cluster for the Penn State Earth System Science Center (ESSC), NSF-EAR [Principal Investigator: M.E. Mann, Co-Investigators: R. Alley, M. Arthur, J. Evans, D. Pollard (Penn State Univ.)] $100,000

2003-2006 Decadal Variability in the Tropical Indo-Pacific: Integrating Paleo & Coupled Model Results, NOAA-Climate Change Data & Detection (CCDD) Program [Principal Investigators: M.E. Mann (U.Va), J. Cole (U. Arizona), V. Mehta (CRCES)] U.Va award (M.E. Mann): $102,000

2002-2005 Reconstruction and Analysis of Patterns of Climate Variability Over the Last One to Two Millennia, NOAA-Climate Change Data & Detection (CCDD) Program [Principal Investigator: M.E. Mann, Co-Investigators: S. Rutherford, R.S. Bradley, M.K. Hughes] $315,000

2002-2005 Remote Observations of Ice Sheet Surface Temperature: Toward Multi-Proxy Reconstruction of Antarctic Climate Variability, NSF-Office of Polar Programs, Antarctic Oceans and Climate System [Principal Investigators: M.E. Mann (U. Va), E. Steig (U. Wash.), D. Weinbrenner (U. Wash)] U.Va award (M.E. Mann): $133,000

2002-2003 Paleoclimatic Reconstructions of the Arctic Oscillation, NOAA-Cooperative Institute for Arctic Research (CIFAR) Program [Principal Investigators: Rosanne D’Arrigo, Ed Cook (Lamont/Columbia); Co-Investigator: M.E. Mann] U.Va subcontract (M.E. Mann): $14,400

2002-2003 Global Multidecadal-to-Century-Scale Oscillations During the Last 1000 years, NOAA-Climate Change Data & Detection (CCDD) Program [Principal Investigator: Malcolm Hughes (Univ. of Arizona); Co-Investigators: M.E. Mann; J. Park (Yale University)] U.Va subcontract (M.E. Mann): $20,775

2001-2003 Resolving the Scale-wise Sensitivities in the Dynamical Coupling Between Climate and the Biosphere, University of Virginia-Fund for Excellence in Science and Technology (FEST) [Principal Investigator: J.D. Albertson; Co-Investigators: H. Epstein, M.E. Mann] U.Va internal award: $214,700

2001-2002 Advancing predictive models of marine sediment transport, Office of Naval Research [Principal Investigator: P. Wiberg (U.Va), Co-Investigator: M.E. Mann] $20,775

1999-2002 Multiproxy Climate Reconstruction: Extension in Space and Time, and Model/Data Intercomparison, NOAA-Earth Systems History [Principal Investigator: M.E. Mann (U.Va), Co-Investigators: R.S. Bradley, M.K. Hughes] $381,647

1998-2000 Validation of Decadal-to-Multi-century climate predictions, DOE [Principal Investigator: R.S. Bradley (U. Mass); Co-Investigators: H.F. Diaz, M.E. Mann]

1998-2000 The changing seasons? Detecting and understanding climatic change, NSF-Hydrological Science [Principal Investigator U. Lall (U. Utah); Co-investigators: M.E. Mann, B. Rajagopalan, M. Cane] $266,235K

1996-1999 Patterns of Organized Climatic Variability: Spatio-Temporal Analysis of Globally

Distributed Climate Proxy Records and Long-term Model Integrations, NSF-Earth Systems History [Principal Investigator: R.S. Bradley (U. Mass); Co-Investigators: M.E. Mann, M.K. Hughes] $270,000

1996-1998 Investigation of Patterns of Organized Large-Scale Climatic Variability During the Last

Millennium, DOE, Alexander Hollaender Postdoctoral Fellowship [M.E. Mann] $78,000

For those keeping score, that’s almost $6 million total for various predictions, models and reconstructions over the last 13 years by Mann and his playmates. Note also the generally escalating grant amounts in recent years. A lot of that is from the government’s National Science Foundation and NOAA teats. Wouldn’t trains and Tinkertoys been just as much fun and cost a whole lot less?

Anyway, Pennsylvania State University, where Mann is currently housed, is investigating him now. Mann calls Climategate a “manufactured controversy.” Some alumni are calling for his ouster. Will he follow Phil? Maybe they can carry on their pen pal-manship somewhere else off the taxpayer dime.

Willie Soon and David Legates, both respected members of the American Geophysical Union, tell the story of how their planned session to discuss scientific papers that consider the many contributing factors to climate variability was a “go,” until suddenly it wasn’t:

We developed this session to honor the great tradition of science and scientific inquiry, as exemplified by Galileo when, 400 years ago this year, he first pointed his telescope at the Earth’s moon and at the moons of Jupiter, analyzed his findings, and subsequently challenged the orthodoxy of a geocentric universe. Our proposed session was accepted by the AGU.

In response to its acceptance, we were joined by a highly distinguished list of scientists – which included members of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, France and China, as well as recipients of the AGU’s William Bowie, Charles Whitten and James MacElwane medals. Our participants faithfully submitted abstracts for the session.

But by late September, several puzzling events left us wondering whether the AGU truly serves science and environmental scientists – or simply reflects, protects and advances the political agendas of those who espouse belief in manmade CO2-induced catastrophic global warming.

Could this AGU position have anything to do with it?

The scientific consensus on climate change was expressed in an open letter sent to the US Senate on last Wednesday, 21 October….

While the signatories represent a wide variety of scientific disciplines, they all came together to express their concern over anthropogenic climate change. The letter states: “Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science.”

What about the independent lines of evidence of no global warming the last ten years, which the vast body could not see below their extended gut?

The Center for American Progress is criticizing Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota (Hat tip: Tom Nelson) for his apparent flip-flop on anthropogenic causes of global warming, according to The Economist, which reported:

He recently explained that the earth might be warming, but that it is unclear “to what extent that is the result of natural causes.”

Hard to blame CAP, considering this is the kind of thing Pawlenty, a likely GOP presidential candidate, was saying two years ago:

Our global climate is warming, at least in part due to the energy sources we use. We cannot solve it by ourselves, but we need to lead and do our part. We also need to push for an effective national and international effort.

And only last year he assisted global warming activist groups, funded by the alarmist Rockefeller Brothers Fund, to produce this propaganda video. Key Pawlenty narrative:

I don’t think many people would disagree with the fact that what we’re doing is unsustainable — environmentally, economically, and from a national security standpoint. But we have a chance to try to make a difference, and to do good. (Emphasis Pawlenty’s)

Sprint to the right — the primaries start in only 26 months!

Conflict of interest, public disclosure and government ethics are usually one of the few issues where conservatives like myself can “kumbaya” with the mostly left-leaning opinion editors at major metropolitan newspapers, but a situation today raised by the Denver Post is one in which they’re right, but don’t go nearly far enough.

The Post‘s editorial board today praises a move by Alice Madden, a cabinet-level adviser (think “czar”) on global warming policy for Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter, to give up a $3,000 monthly stipend she receives from the liberal Center for American Progress. This followed a Post editorial on Wednesday which chastened Madden for accepting the supplemental cash due to a perceived conflict of interest.

We think state Climate Change Coordinator Alice Madden has crossed that line by accepting a monthly stipend from the liberal research group Center for American Progress….

…it makes us uneasy that someone with sway over state climate change policy, an important and politically charged arena, would be paid by a group with such a defined agenda.

We think our government officials ought to have greater distance from those sorts of groups so as to have unfettered freedom to suggest action that might cut across the grain of accepted thought.

All fine and good, except (as the Post goes on to note) Madden’s entire $80,000 annual salary is privately funded by the Hewlett Foundation, the Energy Foundation, and the Denver Foundation. This has been the case for at least two years, when I discovered that Madden’s predecessor, Heidi Van Genderen, had the same arrangement to cover her compensation. But even though the Independence Institute‘s Jon Caldara and I spent more than a little time in a sit-down session last year with Post editorial page editor Dan Haley and his board explaining the problem with the arrangement, they see it differently, as they wrote on Wednesday:

Madden’s position in the Ritter administration already was something of an eyebrow-raising anomaly. Her $80,000 salary is being funded by the Denver Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Energy Foundation.

While at least two of these groups support sustainable energy, they don’t exhibit the same degree of activism as the Center for American Progress, whose leader was co-chair of President Obama’s transition team.

We hope Madden rethinks the nature of her relationship with the group so as to put to rest any potential future questions about her independence.

That the Hewlett and Energy Foundations don’t “exhibit the same degree of activism” as CAP on the global warming issue is so not true that the Post should be embarrassed and run a correction, because Haley and company obviously haven’t spent the five minutes it would take on the two foundations’ Web sites to get the story straight. A sampling from Hewlett’s climate change page (arrival time, 20 seconds):

In 2007, the Hewlett Foundation worked with five other foundations to sponsor a study of what could be done to fight global warming. The ensuing report, “Design to Win,” concluded that policy reform is one essential step toward stabilizing temperatures. Working with international foundations and organizations in regions with the largest greenhouse gas emissions, the Environment Program makes grants to help create efficient energy policies. This work targets Europe, the United States, China, and Latin America….

…National policy, supported in part by the scientific analysis of Hewlett Foundation grantees, will eliminate 320 metric tons of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions in 2020. Our grantees continue to work on establishing sound energy and climate policies to increase energy efficiency and environmental health.


In Copenhagen this December, Hewlett Foundation grantees will join with representatives of approximately 170 countries and numerous other nongovernmental organizations to draft what participants hope will be a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, the international agreement to reduce greenhouse gases.

Hewlett spends tens of millions of dollars on climate initiatives annually. What degree of activism is that? Then there’s the Energy Foundation Web site, which is almost entirely about climate and sustainability (click-through arrival time: less than 5 seconds):

We seek to develop and promote a comprehensive, market-based climate change policy framework that creates jobs and puts the country on course toward a sustainable energy future. We focus primarily on national policy to cap and reduce carbon pollution, while also supporting precedent-setting state and regional programs.

EF issued over $107 million in grants during the last two years, almost completely related to energy and climate initiatives, since that’s the reason the foundation exists in the first place. The Center for American Progress should be so exhibitionist about their climate activism.

As Caldara and I told our Post pals 18 months ago, Van Genderen — and now her successor, Madden — could not have a more thorough and all-encompassing conflict of interest on their hands than they do by living off these foundations. Ritter also had a Utilities Commission liaison (sort of an additional “energy czar”) with a similar arrangement from the foundations — don’t know if he still does. Their positions either ought to be eliminated, or instead funded by taxpayers so they will be accountable to the public, not to environmental pressure groups.

Care to reconsider, Dan Haley?

Update 7:35 p.m. EST Friday: My friend, Independence Institute investigative reporter Todd Shepherd, broke the story last month that Gov. Ritter’s cabinet members all failed to follow an executive order for three years and file conflict of interest reports. It was in Madden’s report that her $3,000 payments from CAP were discovered. The Post reported on it four days later.