Roman M and TomRude have observed an interesting letter writing campaign in which Michael Mann contests adverse opinion in provincial newspapers, accusing the letter writers of being “parrots”.

Today (July 31, 2010), Mann sent the following letter to the Saint John (New Brunswick) Telegraph Journal objecting to a letter published July 30. Similar letters were sent on July 22 to the Fredericton (New Brunswick) Daily Gleaner and on July 29 to the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

Mann’s July 31 letter to the Saint John Telegraph Journal replied to a July 30 letter to the editor as follows:

A letter published July 30 did a grave disservice to your readers by making false and defamatory statements about me and other climate scientists. It repeats false allegations (based on illegally hacked emails) of supposed scientific misconduct (e.g. the supposed destruction of data) that have now been rejected as false by three separate investigations in the U.K. A similar investigation by my university has exonerated me of any of the wrongdoing alleged by climate change deniers. Unfortunately, these exonerations cannot stop individuals from repeating the false allegations. The writer parrots the false claim that I have advised colleagues “to isolate and ignore scientific journals that publish the views of the global-warming skeptics.” This claim is based on a thorough misrepresentation of a single example: a deeply flawed paper in 2003 published by the journal “Climate Research” by Willie Soon & Sallie Baliunas claiming that recent warming is not unusual. I did in fact have concerns about the paper and the process that led to its publication. The journal’s editor-in-chief Hans Von Storch found that the paper “was flawed” and “shouldn’t have been published” and half the editorial board quit in protest of its publication. Climate change deniers object to the term, using instead “skeptic” to describe those who deny the overwhelming evidence of human-caused climate change. “Skepticism” is a good thing in science. But when it is applied in only one direction it is not “skepticism” at all, but indeed, denial. It is ironic that scientists (including myself) are accused of dishonesty. It is those who spread false information about science and scientists – whether knowingly, or parroting the disinformation of others – who do the greatest harm to the public discourse on vital issues such as climate change. MICHAEL E. MANN Professor, Dept. of Meteorology, Penn State University Director, Penn State Earth System Science Center

ON July 22, 2010, Mann wrote the Fredericton Daily Gleaner (in New Brunswick, Canada):

Re: Science and truth In a piece published in your paper July 20, you allowed Thaddee Renault to do a grave disservice to your readers by making false statements about me and other climate scientists. Mr. Renault repeats allegations (based on illegally hacked emails) of supposed scientific misconduct by scientists at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia that have now been rejected as false by three separate investigations in the U.K. A similar investigation by my university has exonerated me of any of the wrongdoing alleged by climate-change deniers. Unfortunately, these exonerations can’t stop individuals such as Mr. Renault from repeating the false allegations. Mr. Renault parrots the false claim that I have advised colleagues “to isolate and ignore scientific journals that publish the views of the global-warming skeptics.” His claim is based on a misrepresentation of a single example: a flawed paper in 2003 published by the journal Climate Research by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas claiming that recent warming isn’t unusual. I did have concerns about the paper and the process that led to its publication. As the Wall Street Journal reported, this study, funded by the fossil-fuel industry, was heavily criticized by a large number of other scientists. The journal’s editor-in-chief Hans Von Storch found that the paper “was flawed” and “shouldn’t have been published.” Mr. Renault objects to the term “climate-change denier” to describe him and his fellow travellers, favouring instead to be called a skeptic. Skepticism is a good thing in science, but when it’s applied in only one direction (i.e. to question all scientific evidence of the reality of climate change), it’s not skepticism at all, but denial. Readers interested in the truth behind the science, rather than the falsehoods and smears perpetuated by people such as Mr. Renault, should consult the scientist-run website http://www.realclimate.org or scientifically based books on the topic such as my Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming. It’s ironic that Mr. Renault accuses scientists of wrongdoing. It’s those such as Mr. Renault who spread false information about science and scientists – whether knowingly or by simply parrotting the disinformation of others – who do the greatest harm to the public discourse on vital issues such as climate change. Michael Mann, director

Penn State Earth System Science Center

University Park, Penn.

On July 29, Mann wrote the Minneapolis Star Tribune in response to a letter here:

In “Warming alarmists can’t stand the heat” (July 26), the Star Tribune allowed Peter J. Havanac to do a grave disservice to its readers by making false statements about me and other climate scientists. Havanac repeated false allegations (based on illegally hacked e-mails) of supposed scientific misconduct by scientists at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia (for example, the supposed destruction of e-mails) that have now been rejected as false by three separate investigations in the U.K. A similar investigation by my university has exonerated me of any of the wrongdoing alleged by climate-change deniers like Havanac. Unfortunately, these exonerations cannot stop individuals like Havanac from repeating the false allegations. Only the possession of decency can do that. Havanac parroted the false claim that I sought to “undermine” a journal that “contradicted views held by … global-warming alarmists.” His claim was based on a thorough misrepresentation of a single example: a deeply flawed paper published in 2003 by the journal Climate Research. That paper, by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, claimed that recent warming is not unusual. I did in fact have concerns about the paper and the process that led to its publication. As the Wall Street Journal reported (“Global warming skeptics are facing storm clouds,” July 31, 2003), this fossil-fuel-industry-funded study was heavily criticized by a large number of other scientists. The editor-in-chief of Climate Research, Hans Von Storch, found that the paper “was flawed” and “shouldn’t have been published.” Other editors at Climate Research (see “Storm brews over global warming,” Chronicle of Higher Education, Sept. 5, 2003) felt that the editor who had handled the Soon and Baliunas paper had been gaming the system to allow through substandard papers simply because they expressed a contrarian viewpoint regarding climate change. Ultimately, both Von Storch and half of the editorial board quit in protest over the apparent corruption of the peer review process at the journal. Havanac objects to the term “climate-change denier” to describe him and his fellow travelers. Perhaps he prefers to think of himself as a “skeptic” instead? Well, skepticism is a good thing in science. But when it is applied in only one direction (that is, to reject all evidence of climate change while uncritically accepting transparently flawed arguments against it), it is not skepticism at all, but indeed, denial. Readers interested in the truth behind the science, rather than the falsehoods and smears perpetuated by people like Havanac, should consult the scientist-run website realclimate.org or scientifically based books on the topic like my “Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming.” If it ironic that Havanac accuses climate scientists of dishonesty. It is those who spread false information about science and scientists — whether knowingly, or by simply uncritically parroting the disinformation of others — who do the greatest harm to the public discourse on vital issues such as climate change.



