IF the science of AGW is settled, why are scientists opposed to a REAL investigation of Michael Mann?

Apparently you have one of your facts wrong. That is what we get for believing that Phil Jones knows what he is talking about. Mann apparently didn't actually need to use the temperature record. He used cherry picked tree ring data that was selected to fit his agenda.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/30/ke%E2%80%A6

Ross McKitrick says:

May 30, 2010 at 2:56 pm

First quote is from the article that MacKitrick corrected.

"" Analysts Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick later showed that Mann’s computer program generated hockey-stick patterns regardless of what numbers were fed into it – even random telephone numbers; that explained why the global warming and cooling of the last millennium magically disappeared in Mann’s “temperature reconstruction.”

That’s not true. We showed that Mann’s PC algorithm generated a hockey stick-shaped PC1 even when fed autocorrelated random numbers, which biased the benchmarking for his test statistic, that is, it overstated the significance of the model fit. It also mines a data set for hockey stick shapes and promotes them to the PC1 even when they are minor attributes of the data set, thus falsely representing the (in his case) bristlecones with their outlier shape in the 20th century as the dominant pattern in tree ring records. That allowed Mann to conclude that the hockey stick shape was the major pattern in his data set, even though it is only associated with a small regional subset of data that most observers (including the NAS Panel) caution should not be used for temperature reconstruction.

Mann’s algorithm won’t produce a hockey stick-shaped PC1 if fed white noise, or for that matter, his own data set with the 20 bristlecone pine series censored, which is what he had demonstrated in the famous “CENSORED” folder. Since phone numbers are likely uniform iid random numbers, I doubt they would produce a hockey stick either.

Also, the “trick” in the climategate emails was used by Jones. He attributed it to Mann, but Mann didn’t actually do what Jones attributed to him. Since Mann’s PC algorithm gave him an upward-sloping tree ring record he had no need to “hide the decline”.

There’s plenty to criticize in the world of IPCC science, but you have to be prepared to make the effort to go into the details and get them right. Nothing I have seen yet suggests that Cucinelli has done so, and I have yet to see any credible basis for his inquiry. I expect it will be thrown back in his face by a court. At the same time, UVa’s treatment of Pat Michaels’ privacy rights has been disturbing–I agree their double standard is loathsome and the silence of the UVa faculty is alarming. I hope they understand the precedent their university is thinking of setting, regarding the privacy of faculty emails.

But for those who hope for legal remedy for perceived damages arising from illegitimate climate science or faulty regulatory processes, they better be prepared to invest the time and effort to master the details before taking such actions public.'"

He also used sediment data in the way that is opposite in how it was intended to be used to erase the medeival warm period or some such thing.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/17/iq%E2%80%A6

Then he had the nerve to say,

"The claim that ‘‘upside down’’ data were used is bizarre. Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors. Screening, when used, employed one-sided tests only when a definite sign could be a priori reasoned on physical grounds. Potential nonclimatic influences on the Tiljander and other proxies were discussed in the SI, which showed that none of our central conclusions relied on their use."

In other words it fit his agenda so it was valid to use. He is essentially making the argument that cherry picking is fine science. He also used data that was almost certainly off by decades to smooth the graphs and eliminate the variability until us evil humans came along. Looking at his idiotic graph from several years ago where it went practically straight up shows what and idiotic clown he is. Even his co-conspirator Phil Jones said there was no significant warming in the last 15 years. If that isn't fraud, it is idiocy beyond belief but I would give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he is just a lying political hack. Now the concerned scientists want to save one of their fellow leftists. At least the concerned part of their name fits.

The world has lost a true and rare star in the form of Michael Jackson. Never has there been such an amazing talent as him. His talent and fan base has been compared to that of The Beatles and Elvis, but i think its fair to say that he is a legend much bigger than any other band or artist. His songs were truly influential to the music world and set a standard so high that nothing since has really compared. There has been no other artist who has achieved such dizzy heights as Jackson. For me, Michael Jackson inspired me with his dancing skill and his songs. There isn't a song of his that i don't love. I know most of the words to his songs, and could watch his dancing for hours on end. Now i wasn't some super fan, but i believe he was a true idol and i don't think the world will see such a talent ever again. I feel he was misunderstood and his quirky (and sometimes a little off the wall) ways were taken completely the wrong way by the world. It saddens me that the world is such a judgemental and harsh place, and i wish he could have seen how many loyal and loving fans he had. RIP Michael Jackson.

Your reference to the climategate emails is more than enough to show the phony nature of your question, that has already been resoled by an independent inquiry, and the scientists cleared.

Mann's work has already be assessed by an inquiry conducted by NAS and found to be fundamentally correct, all you have proved here is that deniers are full of hot air and seem incapable of keeping up with the facts. Deniers like yourself continue to post lies like this

"The hockey stick was first broken by climatologists Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, who demonstrated that a Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were clearly reflected in historic data across the globe, but redacted by Mann."

This is complete fiction and you know it.

p.s. Willie Soon is an astrophysicist not a climatologist

Sallie Baliunas is an astrophysicist not a climatologist

nice fact checking, as usual

Because the investigations that have taken place so far have all been conducted either by scientists (who are going to back up a fellow scientist) or by nonscientists, like the British House of Commons (who are not competent to judge because they are not scientists).

Only someone with the wisdom and disinterested selflessness of a Cuccinelli has the level of judgement and ability required to uncover the shocking truth.

We have had literally thousands of separate scientific papers about various aspects of global warming, including vigourous contributions from the shrinking band of sceptics, but one of two things must still be the case, if not both:

a) The science isn't really settled, because the scientists don't all agree.

b) All the scientists are saying the same thing, so there isn't really any proper debate.

[Poe's law applies, so I'd better say I'm being sarcastic]

Willie Soon has been funded by petro-dollars over the last 20 years. Make up your own mind. Soon and a couple of people who are funded by oil/petrol/gas companies (though note that now thatthe coal industry has figured out it can get money from the govt it suddenly believes in climate change), or thousands of reputable scientists.

The link provided debunks most of the rubbish trotted out as "support" by climate change deniers.

A "REAL" investigation by your definition is one that finds Mann guilty. Since you have already determined guilt, anything less than that would not be determined "REAL".

Cuccinelli is not only incompetent to judge Mann's scientific findings, he has no standing in the matter unless Virginia state funds were being used for the research. Fraud committed under NSF funding would fall into federal jurisdiction.

This is a political stunt meant to impress rubes.

EDIT for jim z: Of course Michael Mann can, should and has explained his methods. The question is whether a state attorney general should be investigating someone for political purposes, which this surely is. How would you feel if Gerry Brown launched an investigation of your work? Is this something you would be pleased about? I'm sure there's as much evidence of malfeasance on your part as there is of Michael Mann.

"The hockey stick was first broken by climatologists Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, who demonstrated that a Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were clearly reflected in historic data across the globe, but redacted by Mann."

"Analysts Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick later showed that Mann’s computer program generated hockey-stick patterns regardless of what numbers were fed into it – even random telephone numbers; that explained why the global warming and cooling of the last millennium magically disappeared in Mann’s“temperature reconstruction.”

And then the National Academy of Sciences verified Dr. Mann's overall conclusion...

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/08057...

Cuccinelli needs to add the National Academy of Sciences to his hitlist. What a crackpot!

EDIT - maybe the 810 Virginia scientists should request an investigation from the Virginia IG to investigate Cuccinelli for wasting taxpayer money with his fraudulent investigation of a scientist who's conclusions have been verified by the nations top scientists.

Unfortunately, Cuccinelli is relying on denier propaganda to support his witch hunt. I'm pretty sure that in most real legal investigations you have to start with *actual* probable cause and not manufactured propaganda and a political agenda.

Personally, I'd like to see Cuccinelli removed from office and perhaps disbarred for his abuses, but that should definitely wait until after his prosecution falls apart under the weight of real evidence.

_

Because Cuccinelli is conducting a political witch hunt that has nothing to do with a real investigation of science. His request for documents has little to do with scientific data, which he would have no competence to interpret anyway. It's a government sponsored attack on academic freedom and attempt at intimidation that has no place in America. Read the document demand itself, linked below, and you will see that this has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with an attempt to intimidate.

Edit:

Note that the document demand does not ask Mann "to explain his data, formulas, and conclusions," If it did then Mann could respond by simply sending a copy of his write up of his study. Instead it requires copies of years of emails and other irrelevant documents from Mann and others. Read the document demand in the link below.