http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-difference-between-true-science-and-cargo-cult-science/

And you don't often go wrong citing Feynman.

I guess, if you mean eliminating the entire conclusion from the graph, is a minor effect.

But here is some of McIntyre's commentary
http://climateaudit.org/2009/09/27/yamal-a-divergence-problem/

instead of just insinuating that he found negligble changes.

And yes it is "fraud" when you purposely leave out data that don't support your conclusion. That's what Mann did.

Hopefully Mann is honest. However the state-funded part is more to the point. A patron has an unusual leverage over his client. This is not as much of a problem in art; after all, just because something fits the taste of a given aristocrat, doesn't mean it's bad art. Science though depends on accuracy, not aesthetics.

It is not clear how to solve this problem; scientists will always need patrons unless they are independently wealthy. But it is a problem.

Rather than post a bunch of links on ThePoint, I'll just point out that you can google "Michael Mann interview global warming" and come up with a half dozen links without any troubles.

The other questions aren't hard to answer if, like I said, you've done a minimal amount of research on the subject. I follow Science and Nature's articles, and they have long since explained that Mann's "hockey stick graph" was but one piece of evidence amongst many. (McIntyre found a few errors with the graph, but they only affected it minorly).

I agree with you that Mann's job is as a state-funded researcher - and that's what he does. He's not obligated to do interviews; he's obligated to publish results in scientific journals.

What fraudulent data did Mann publish? (in other words: I'm highly skeptical of this - could you please provide me with some evidence for what you're saying?)

"Bible Study? Moi?" - That's hilarious. I will have to share that with some of the Twilight Moms I know. Unfortunately, I also know lots of teenage girls who are fascinated with the series. And their mothers approve. Very, very sad.

For fraud.

Ben, if Mann has done so many interviews answering the tough questions, then please post links to them. Because it's not hidden that this IS his day job: being a state-funded researcher on "climate science". And as such, he's responsible to the public who pays his salary and his grants. If Mann doesn't like the role, then I'd gladly see him step down.

I've been following the AGW discussion for 22+ years, and there has never been any solid evidence presented. Quite the opposite in fact. There's much evidence that doesn't corroborate the AGW hypothesis.

The fact that Mann got caught publishing fraudulent data (and yes, that's what it is according to my institution's Code of Ethics, and I expect that's not much different from UVA and PSU) is exactly why he should be fired, and criminal charges should be filed against him, much like what happened to Hwang Woo-suk. (Same w/ James Hansen) PSU should have all federal funding cut off until they address this issue.

Great questions by Ott, however. Very specific and direct to the issues.

Bleh. It's quite disingenuous to say that Michael Mann "hides atop the climate change ivory tower". He's done numerous interviews, and all the questions the reporter asked have already been well-answered in many of the layman-oriented review articles in Science or Nature. While I feel slightly bad for the reporter that Mann didn't give him much of a response, Mann has a day job and a family that already keep him busy. The reporter should go do a bit more research - it's not hard to find the answers.