Mann to be investigated by Penn State University review

This statement was released by Penn State here. Oddly, while mentioning the NAS report, there is no mention of the Congressional commissioned Wegman report, which you can see here full report (PDF). Or for a quick read the fact-sheet (PDF).

University Reviewing Recent Reports on Climate Information
Professor Michael Mann is a highly regarded member of the Penn State faculty conducting research on climate change. Professor Mann’s research papers have been published in well respected peer-reviewed scientific journals.

In November 2005, Representative Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) requested that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) convene a panel of independent experts to investigate Professor Mann’s seminal 1999 reconstruction of the global surface temperature over the past 1,000 years. The resulting 2006 report of the NAS panel (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676) concluded that Mann’s results were sound and has been subsequently supported by an array of evidence that includes additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions.

In recent days a lengthy file of emails has been made public. Some of the questions raised through those emails may have been addressed already by the NAS investigation but others may not have been considered. The University is looking into this matter further, following a well defined policy used in such cases. No public discussion of the matter will occur while the University is reviewing the concerns that have been raised.

h/t Joe D’Aleo


Sponsored IT training links:
Catch the real threads of success with latest 650-195 dumps, 642-873 study guides and 642-504 practice test.


About these ads
This entry was posted in Climategate. Bookmark the permalink.

159 Responses to Mann to be investigated by Penn State University review

  1. Neal Asher says:

    Yeah yeah yeah, we know all about ‘investigations’. Get that bucket of white stuff out.

  2. Paul Vaughan says:

    “The University is looking into this matter further”

    Translation: University administrators are thrilled at the opportunity to consolidate their power.

  3. Pamela Gray says:

    They meant to say, “A PEER-REVIEWED, POST-NORMAL” investigation. Geesh. Get the vernacular straight!

  4. Hu McCulloch says:

    The resulting 2006 report of the NAS panel (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676) concluded that Mann’s results were sound…

    I haven’t read the NAS report for a while, but my recollection is that it was more negative than that.

  5. David S. McQueen says:

    Why is it that every time an academic like Prof. Michael Mann gets in trouble, they are described as “highly regarded”? Penn State will stand by whatever Mann wants, protecting him until the end, because Penn State has a financial dog in this hunt.

    The whole cabal of “scientists” should be investigated by the FBI or by some agency that DOESN’T have a financial stake in clearing Mann of all misconduct.

  6. SABR Matt says:

    Translation: The university will not admit that Mann’s data is flawed or that AGW is being intentionally overplayed. They will, however, find some evidence of misconduct to slap Mann on the wrist with so they seem like they’re doing a good job to their very angry donors and alums.

  7. Mark T says:

    The resulting 2006 report of the NAS panel (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676) concluded that Mann’s results were sound

    That’s nonsense. Unless you think that “sound for the last 400 years up through 1960, which we have temperature records for anyway” constitutes “sound.”

    Mark

  8. P Gosselin says:

    I think they’re gonna try to whitewash.
    What do the rest of you think?

  9. DR says:

    Does anyone really believe anything will come of this? Doug Keenan didn’t get anywhere with his formal fraud complaint. It too was “investigated” by the University administrators. Outcome? Nothing.

    This too will be brushed off I’m afraid.

  10. mike s says:

    [snip]

  11. Histograde says:

    Hey Anthony,

    Have you already posted the full NAS report in this article? I just finished reading it and I am shocked! SHOCKED I SAY! WOW! I hope to see some of the scientist on WUWT weigh in on these conclusions.

  12. None says:

    I doubt they’ll find that pressuring journals, or being a victim of confirmation bias etc is any kind of actionable offence. If only it was their mail server that was hacked, i’m sure there’d be much more interesting material, which really would be ationable.

  13. Robinson says:

    Another whitewash. What’s the betting he comes out squeaky clean?

  14. Paul Coppin says:

    “Why is it that every time an academic like Prof. Michael Mann gets in trouble, they are described as “highly regarded”?”

    The same way the local perp who loses a gunfight with the police or his cronies is described by his familiars as “he was just getting his life turned around and back on track…”

  15. Douglas DC says:

    This may be O.t.,a bit but this is from Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower’s farewell address:
    Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.

    Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

    This came after the “Military /Industrial complex” part.-Could’ve been yesterday…

  16. Phillip Bratby says:

    “highly respected” “well regarded”. By whom?

  17. davidc says:

    “No public discussion of the matter will occur while the University is reviewing the concerns that have been raised.”

    They mean that Penn State will have this blog closed? And all other blogs too? Newspapers will be shut down?. Also any TV outlets and twitter, etc …. Perhaps they could clarify their position on whether private discussions between up to two people are permitted and provide a list of registered venues where this is allowed.

  18. Clive says:

    Whereas university researchers (theoretically) do not get more salary when they bring in grants, there are increased personal perks. The university community thrives and grows overall…lots of admin and support staff rely on grants.

    With the tens of millions involved in climate research at Penn State and other institutions, the money will dictate the outcome of this and as others have noted this will be whitewashed. A sad time in academia.

    Ironically Wiki defines academia as .. the collective terms for the community of students and scholars engaged in higher education and research. Yet another reason to not believe Wiki. ☺

  19. Pingo says:

    10 years too late.

  20. Brian D says:

    Maybe this has been mentioned before, or not, but I really think this scandalous behavior has done a lot for the field. Simply put, it has made more scientists (honest scientists, not political hacks) work all the harder to find out what is really going on with our climate, and is producing some very good science. And now that it has been brought to light, this should release the stranglehold to some degree, and allow the science to advance even further. How refreshing that would be.

  21. tim maguire says:

    IMO, this is them waiting to see what happens next. If it blows over, they’ll exonerate him, but if Penn State winds up with a black eye, then he’ll be left out on the clothes line to flap in the breeze.

  22. Lance says:

    They won’t do a damn thing…

  23. Calvin Ball says:

    Why is it that every time an academic like Prof. Michael Mann gets in trouble, they are described as “highly regarded”?

    In court, that would be considered prejudicial. But this isn’t a court, in the sense we understand it to be.

  24. Kate says:

    “The University is looking into this matter further, following a well defined policy used in such cases. ”

    …The “well defined policy” being not to find any wrongdoing, and carry on as before.

    The answer is in the same statement as the question.
    Talk about a waste of time.

  25. darwin says:

    They usually start cover-ups and whitewashing by finding a scapegoat. Maybe Mann is the scapegoat, maybe he isn’t … but I doubt our leftist controlled schools will be bastions of objectivity.

  26. trentk269 says:

    Penn State appears to be kicking the can down the road in order for somebody else to make a decision. The real issue here is whether or not people like Mann can make political hay out of scientific claims which are based upon secret data. It seems obvious that this is not warranted.

  27. Arthur Glass says:

    As long as Mann brings in the grant bucks, Behemoth University will back him up.

  28. Kevin B. says:

    Mistakes were made. The cause must go on.

  29. Reed Coray says:

    As I see it, the issue facing Penn State isn’t the validity/invalidity of AGW or the blessings/condemnations of government panels; but rather how Penn State deals with a member of its academic staff who may have “bent” the rules of academic ethics.

    A university that retains on its scientific staff someone who (a) “fudges” data to “tell a story”, (b) fights tooth-and-nail to prevent the raw data on which he/she bases his/her conclusions from being made available to the general public, and/or (c) actively conspires to prevent opposing views to be published in the academic literature falls far short of being called a “Great University”.

    Although I believe Dr. Mann to be guilty of one or more of these transgressions, I do not know that to be the case. If the recent hacked/leaked ClimateGate E-mails are legitimate, then there exists at least reason to suspect that Dr. Mann is guilty. I’m pleased to hear Penn State is looking into the matter. To not investigate would, in my opinion, be a sign that Penn State University stands more for “political correctness” than for truth and academic ethics. Time will tell.

  30. mkurbo says:

    Mann Made-up Global Warming !

  31. Manfred says:

    i hope this investigation will obey peer reviewing standards !

    that means somebody like honourable stefan rahmstorf shall lead the investigation and the results should be reviewed by honourable prof. phil jones and 2 other reviewers named by honourable prof. mann himself.

  32. rbateman says:

    I think if they were actually serious about investigating Michael Mann, they would suspend him pending investigation. There’s way too much in the leaked emails and data not to. It really stinks.

  33. Pamela Gray says:

    If you boil this down between left and right, you miss the point and are destined to repeat the mistake. I am a liberal left-leaning voting citizens and have voted for human rights, women’s abortion rights, gay and lesbian rights, better health care, help for the downtrodden, etc. So how do you explain me? I am a reasoned, well-read, and intelligent skeptic who has written to all my representatives to inform them of my views opposing all legislation and efforts to address man-made climate change, with the warning that if they don’t follow suit, my votes in the future will be against them if they choose to seek re-election. Again, how do you explain me? To tell you the truth, I am getting sick and tired of the uninformed bloggers who continue to trot out this prejudicial remark.

  34. Joe D'Aleo says:

    Given that Dr Easterling came out of NCDC (and thus was an integral part of the data issues) and authored http://ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/documents/Easterling-Observed-Change-Jan-07.pdf for the AMS, don’t expect anything to happen unless more emerges.

  35. Smokey says:

    Internal investigations are inherently political. If Penn State wanted the truth, they would have appointed a credible outside investigator.

    The only people who can hold Penn State’s feet to the fire are the alumni [and note that Michael Mann is not a Penn State alumnus].

    If Penn alumni don’t really care that Mann wrote emails against other scientists and journals simply because they disagreed with Mann’s version of AGW, and that those proposed vindictive actions were taken to game the peer review system for the personal benefit of Mann and his pals, then nothing will be done.

    But if the alumni get together and demand professional honesty and integrity from their school’s employees, then Mann will MoveOn.

    It’s really up to the Penn State alumni — and whether they care about their school’s reputation being tarnished by Michael Mann’s reprehensible actions.

    The alumni give the most money by far to their alma mater, far exceeding any grants that Mann pulls in. And future grants are sure to be closely scrutinized following the email exposure.

  36. Steve S. says:

    Can we get the e-mails with them discussing who will be on the “panel”?

    Can PanelGate be avoided?

    I had to put this here. It’s too rich.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/warm-reception-to-antarctic-warming-story/

    .5 Calum says:
    28 January 2009 at 4:32 AM
    Quote: Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, 15th Jan 2009,”My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit. Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy.”
    Anyone at Real Climate care to comment?

    [Response: Dr. Theon appears to have retired from NASA in 1994, some 15 years ago. Until yesterday I had never heard of him (despite working with and for NASA for the last 13 years). His insights into both modelling and publicity appear to date from then, rather than any recent events. He was not Hansen's 'boss' (the director of GISS reports to the director of GSFC, who reports to the NASA Administrator). His "some scientists" quote is simply a smear - which scientists? where? what did they do? what data? what manipulation? This kind of thing plays well with Inhofe et al because it appears to add something to the 'debate', but in actual fact there is nothing here. Just vague, unsubstantiated accusations. - gavin]

  37. Robert M. says:

    I think that the results of this investigation are pretty much obvious to the casual observer. When they use words and phrases like “peer reviewed”, “highly regarded” and “well respected” it is pretty easy to parse to “We are riding the gravy train as well, don’t mess with our funding!

  38. Otter says:

    One hopes michael will Mann up to this instead of being a Mannequin. I mean, it isn’t like he had a Manndate to do what he did… actually I take that back, his politics made it Manndatory. This is what one can expect when people like this Mannage science. If he’s lucky he won’t be taken out in Mannacles for Manngling the data. No more Mannuevers for him! Maybe next time he’ll go into art and take up Mannga.

    And for us, this is Manna from Heaven.

    Fortunately I figure to stop while I am ahead.

    Kick the bum out!

  39. Robert Morris says:

    If they use climate scientists or members of the PennState academic/alumni community then stand by for a White Wash.

    If, however, they are really intent on an open investigation and use serious scientists from “real” science backgrounds then maybe there’s a chance of a proper examination of Mann.

  40. DJ Meredith says:

    Is this a good time to dig this one up from the WUWT archives??

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/03/climate-science-fraud-at-albany-university/

    I found most interesting the names of co-authors of Wang’s papers….. IPCC’s reviewers??

  41. Plato Says says:

    I’ve been trawling through youtube and this is damning – part 7/9.

    http://plato-says.blogspot.com/2009/11/this-is-so.html

  42. evanmjones says:

    Something must be wrong here there can be no denying.
    One of us is changing or maybe we just stopped trying.

    And it’s too late, baby, now, it’s too late,
    Though we really did try to make it.
    Something inside has died
    And I can’t hide and I just can’t fake it.

    [sic]

  43. TonyB says:

    Does anyone know if Susan Mann- who also works at the Penn Uni- is Dr Mann’s wife?

    A Susan Mann is quoted as one of the 2,500 scientists involved in the last TAR although her actual credentials seem to suggest she does not actually have a science degree-in common with many of those named in the TAR.

    Tonyb

  44. Arthur Glass says:

    I fear that the relevance of the following meditation to the CRUdite scandal
    may not be obvious.

    Anyway, why are we wasting our time on these matters when what is truly important is why Tiger Woods was Escalading out of his driveway at 2:30 in the morning, pursued by a Valkyrie swinging a nine-iron?
    ______________________________

    The sociology of knowledge.

    1. The project of natural science is to give a true and objective account of the workings of physical reality.

    2. This project is, ultimately, undertaken by subjects, i.e. by real men and women, human beings of flesh and bone, passion and committment.

    3. Existentially and historically, the project of natural science is grounded not only in the ideal of discernment of objective truth, but in the reality of the persons of the scientists who pursue that goal as they can, under the circumstances in which they work–circumstances certainly including the formation of social oranizations dedicated to the furtherance of the project of natural science: the foundation, for example, in the seventeenth century,of state-sponsored Academies in Western Europe.

    4. But all human institutions, however glorious in their professed ideal, are subject to decay and corruption. St Francis and his cadre brought a culkture-changing deepening of the inner life to Western Europe in the 13th c. Two generations later, the Franciscan order was rife with the manifestations of human depravity (the Seven Deadlies).

    5. Unlike natural person, ‘corporations’, i.e towns, businesses, universities, possess presumptive eternity. Guinness Brewers, for example, lives and prospers after 250+ circuits of the sun; the Royal Society was a century older.

    6. Therefore, redemption and reformation is always at hand.

    5. As I understand the phrase, ‘the sociology of knowledge’ is the study of the ways in which ‘knowledge’ is attained and transmitted within a given social formation

  45. Alvin says:

    No public discussion of the matter will occur while the University is reviewing the concerns that have been raised.

    Ponder this for a moment. Cool off the controversy? Delay it until Copenhagen?

  46. mkurbo says:

    Pamela Gray (11:04:59) :

    I agree with your stated views as long as healthcare efforts are about lowering costs (legal/defensive medicine reform, insurance portability in exchange for dropping pre-existing barriers and 33% reduction in federal administration costs) and not federal involvement.

    I’m sorry that the far left makes up the majority of those who allowed right thinking environmentalism to be hijacked by socialist progressives. I would say you’re an exception to those that surround you on the liberal left.

    However, how do you explain that the liberal left has been totally complacent in allowing AGW to become the keystone to a “green” movement that is more red (socialist) than green ?

    They have cost people, economies and businesses billions, maybe trillions. Not to mention brainwashing a whole generation of kids and young adults with a story based on fabricated data and faulty science. This is without a doubt the greatest scientific scandal of the modern era – spinning the natural warming/cooling cycles of the earth into a fairy tale of catastrophe climate alarmism to support their far left agenda.

    Look at the left leaning MSM not even responding, reporting, investigating, etc. ? I think you need to re-evaluate the core philosophies that exist on the left that have allowed this tragedy to become a reality – how much effort (worldwide) has been wasted on this that could have been used to solve some real problems ? It sickens me…

  47. Lazarus Long says:

    “No public discussion of the matter will occur while the University is reviewing the concerns that have been raised.”

    …however, private duscussions about how to sweep this under the rug will continue unabated….

    [Joe, you wanna tweak up that server security a notch or two?}

  48. AJ Abrams says:

    Pamela Gray,

    I’ve said the same thing on here a few times now. Now one seems to understand that there are many liberals that are just as appalled as everyone else at the actions of Mann et al.

    I’m a Massachusetts independent environmentalist that has voted for gay rights, for social programs, cleaning up real air pollution etc. I’ve never bought into this nonsense and never will. My degree was also Environmental Engineering, so I have a good understanding of the issues and a strong skeptical mind..and a strong nose for BS.

    Stop making this a right wing versus left wing issue. It isn’t.

  49. Phil A says:

    Curiously I was looking at the Wikipedia entry on this earlier – which basically does a hatchet job on Wegman and whitewashes Mann completely. Ah, to have gatekeepers on your side…

  50. rbateman says:

    “His “some scientists” quote is simply a smear – which scientists? where? what did they do? what data? what manipulation? ‘

    what scientists- the CRU crew
    where- East Anglia, IPCC, NOAA, NCDC and tentacles reaching worldwide
    what did they do? – edited, erased, or dropped whole regions and then claimed they lost the originals
    what data? – The historical and contemporary (padded)
    what manipulation- Hide the Decline

    Theon knew that the data was being operated on before HARRY_READ_ME figured out that it was in an altered state (didn’t match up with their CRU claims) and only recently we discovered how far they had gone off the deep end with it.

    Gavin is playing the “Ivory Tower” card.

  51. Al Pipkin says:

    Penn State is an outstanding institution of higher learning and I’m certain that their investigation of Huck Finn Dr. Mann will result in a whitewash fair and balanced review of the facts.
    /snarc

  52. Jeremy says:

    If Michael Mann is to be investigated for issues with his taxpayer-funded research, I fail to see how the investigation could not be subject to FOIA.

  53. Arthur Glass says:

    Penn State still has, from all accounts, a top-notch meteorology program.

    But I suppose they also have an airy-fairy Earth Sciences Program.

    How about a Gaia Studies Program?

  54. dfbaskwill says:

    They told me he was already investigated for all of this in 2006. There was “nothing to see here” they tell me. As a PSU grad who worked in a reputable biology lab, I’m disgusted.

  55. DJ Meredith says:

    Professor Mann’s papers have been published in well respected, peer-reviewed scientific journals, it says above.

    And what does RealClimate.org have to say about the peer-review process?

    ……”just because a particular paper has passed through peer review does not absolutely insure that the conclusions are correct or scientifically valid….”

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/peer-review-a-necessary-but-not-sufficient-condition/

    I guess he’d know.

  56. Frank says:

    I’ve been devoting much of my spare time since the emails went public here watching the revelations slowly, but inevitably, making their way into public discourse. The irony of all this to me is that notwithstanding the ongoing malfeasance demonstrated by these “scientists” in recreating the paleo-temperature record, such a record, even if it were accurate, would not be evidence of AGW (per William Briggs recent essay). Unfortunately, establishing the latter point with the MSM and the general public will not be easy, and will probably require similar revelations of malfeasance by the keepers of the GCMs, which are constitutes the main body of “evidence” for restricting fossil fuel emissions.

    My thanks to Anthony and all the other wonderful people who have worked so hard in the pursuit of good science. – F

  57. INGSOC says:

    Pamela Gray (11:04:59) :

    “Again, how do you explain me?”

    As a former member of your “ilk”, I would say that you are indeed a most cherished anomaly!

    Cheers!

  58. rbateman says:

    Alvin (11:30:51) :

    Then neither should Michael Mann be allowed to publicly address the issue and still be representing Penn State.

  59. David Schnare says:

    Here’s what the NAS report stated:

    “Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium” because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods, and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales.”

    Oh yeah, and there is this little statement:

    “The collection, compilation, and calibration of paleoclimatic data represent a
    substantial investment of time and resources, often by large teams of researchers. The committee recognizes that access to research data is a complicated, discipline-dependent issue and that access to computer models and methods is especially challenging because intellectual property rights must be considered. Our view is that all research benefits from full and open access to published datasets and that a clear explanation of analytical methods is mandatory. Peers should have access to the information needed
    to reproduce published results, so that increased confidence in the outcome of the study can be generated inside and outside the scientific community. Other committees and organizations have produced an extensive body of literature on the importance of open access to scientific data and on the related guidelines for data archiving and data access (e.g., NRC 1995). Paleoclimate research would benefit if individual researchers, professional societies, journal editors, and funding agencies continued to improve their
    efforts to ensure that these existing open-access practices are followed.”

    Mann is not validated or lauded in the report. Nor did they address the statistical errors he had to recant.

  60. Arthur Glass says:

    Now in the Roman Catholic Church, if a man or a woman is nominated for recognition by the Universal Church as a saint, there follows a trial of that person’s worthiness, and the advocate against canonization is called advocatus diaboli.

    Who wil be advocatus diaboli in lite Mann?

  61. mkurbo says:

    AJ Abrams (11:34:28) :

    AJ – please then explain why the left leaning MSM is not even responding, reporting, and/or investigating this scandal ? And did they, or did they not underwrite AGW for the last fifteen years ? Please – individual views on issues aside – this is very much a left driven agenda…

  62. PSU-EMS-Alum says:

    Joe D’Aleo (11:09:44) :

    “Given that Dr Easterling came out of NCDC … [deleted for brevity] don’t expect anything to happen unless more emerges.”
    —–
    Smokey (11:11:25) :

    “The only people who can hold Penn State’s feet to the fire are the alumni [and note that Michael Mann is not a Penn State alumnus.]”

    ——

    Funny you guys should mention this. Let me tell you a story:

    When Dr. Easterling became dean of the College, one of his first letters to alumni was straight out of the pro-AGW play book. I read it several times to make sure I was reading it correctly. My initial response was “Does he have ANY idea who his alumni are?”

    You see, in addition to graduating a large number of Meteorologists (who tend to be more skeptical of AGW), the College of EMS also graduates PNGE and MNGE (Petroleum Eng and Mining Eng) … you know, those evil, Earth raping hate mongers that, collectively, are the Hitlers and Mussolinis of global warming. It just so happens that many of the more generous Alumni come from those industries.

    It took about three weeks, but we received a second letter from the Dean which was borderline apologetic and had a completely different tone.

    So, yes, the alumni are the key because we can effect rapid change. Furthermore, we have already started discussing amongst ourselves what needs to be done.

  63. Plato Says says:

    Ouch – The Daily Telegraph has another go – so far we’ve had James Delingpole, Gerald Warner and now Damian Thompson putting the boot in.

    It should be noted that the DT is the biggest selling broadsheet in the UK and has developed a split-personality when it comes to its core readers.

    It used to be called The Torygraph as it was shoulder to shoulder with the UK’s Tory aka Conservative party. This hasn’t the case for at least 3/4 yrs and its current owners want the UK to leave the EU and they don’t much like the middle ground blue-green strategy of the present leadership.

    The owner is also big mates with the PM Gordon Brown [strange but true].

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100018211/climategate-the-bbc-is-still-pretending-not-to-notice/

  64. ShrNfr says:

    I think the quote from the Wegman fact sheet says it all: “With clinical trials for drugs and devices to be approved for human use by the FDA, review
    and consultation with statisticians is expected. Indeed, it is standard practice to include statisticians
    in the application-for-approval process. We judge this to be a good policy when public health and
    also when substantial amounts of monies are involved, for example, when there are major policy
    decisions to be made based on statistical assessments. In such cases, evaluation by statisticians
    should be standard practice. This evaluation phase should be a mandatory part of all grant
    applications and funded accordingly.”

    Would you take a drug that was produced by the Mann method of science? I sure wouldn’t.

  65. Craig Goodrich says:

    For the sake of the many newbies to the study of The Great Climate Fraud that may be visiting here, as background it should be emphasized that Mann’s incessant claim that he was vindicated by the NAS is a transparent lie. He was not; in fact, the NAS agreed completely and in toto with the criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick — as did Wegman et al. M&M, by actually analyzing Mann’s raw data and methods, singlehandedly (dualhandedly?) made Mann’s temperature hockey stick graph, the centerpiece of the IPCC’s Third Assessment, into the most comprehensively discredited object in late 20th century science.

    Background and details at http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2322 — note that ClimateAudit is periodically overloaded these days due to the Climategate hubbub.

  66. David S says:

    P Gosselin (10:05:48) :

    “I think they’re gonna try to whitewash.
    What do the rest of you think?”

    Well I hope Penn State realizes that if they whitewash it and it’s later proven that Mann was indeed corrupt then Penn State will go down along with Mann.

  67. Dave L says:

    Sorry if I sound like a broken record, but it is all about money. Think money. I can guarantee that the Penn State Admin will base their findings upon MONEY. Dr. Mann brings in lots of research bucks = prestige. Money will do all of the talking at the hearing — it always does. Mann will not only be exonerated, he will be decorated as a scientist dedicated to …. money.

  68. Phillip Bratby says:

    25million and counting. Well done Anthony. Soon to overtaken by google hits on “Climategate”

  69. GringoBob says:

    hopefully we will find out if global warming is Mann made or Jones made ?

    http://Group912.org

  70. Robert E. Phelan says:

    I’d say that the University is being a bit proactive…. in trying to deflect an outside inquiry. If they can give the appearance of being self-regulating then maybe they can limit the damage.

    We need a Congressional Investigation now! Senator Inhofe should be sending the University a note to the effect that any pre-emptive investigation on their part will be considered an interference with Congress.

  71. David S says:

    If I throw a ball up into the air, it’s motion can be described according to Newton’s second law, F=MA.
    If I heat pure water at STP it will boil at 212F.
    If I cool it it will freeze at 32F.
    Einstein’s general relativity predicts a number of things which have been verified by tests.
    These things are indeed peer reviewed facts.

    By comparison, the “peer review” process as it pertains to climate reconstructions is beginning to sound more like the WAG process. (Wild A__ Guess)

  72. lichanos says:

    Contrary to all the knee-jerk reactions posted here predicting a whitewash, etc., I think this is a good thing. I’m certain that Mann is not pleased by the development, which in itself might restrain him in the future. Possibly they will reprimand him, or worse. Possibly they will slap his wrist or pat his back. We will have to wait.

    To my mind, the best thing about these developments is that it may light a fire under the scientists – many, I suspect – who had their doubts or their criticisms about how this work was being done and who will now be energized to get more “hands on” in protecting the integrity and reputation of their scientific field.

  73. Jean Bosseler says:

    Who will be advocatus diaboli in lite Mann?

    Yes, I want to be his advocatus diaboli!

    He convinced so many of his religion that he is easily pardoned for his sins!

  74. AJ Abrams says:

    Mkurbo,

    MSM hasn’t covered it because they bought into it. I seem to recall Mr. McCain bought into it as well, which proves my point, that it isn’t a left vs right issue. It’s a correct science verses incorrect science issue. If you make it anything less than you are part of the problem, not the solution.

    As an independent, I certainly agree that idiots from the left have grabbed onto it…not all of them but many. However that doesn’t mean it’s what the issue is about. Is religion a left versus right issue also? I mean family values were grabbed onto by the right….that mean only the right had them?

    Silly silly thought. If you want the whole world to “get” the issue. Stay neutral on the whose side this is….and attack the real problem. It’s an agenda and not backed by science and the peer review process has been corrupted.

    In actuality….the ones really behind the issue aren’t classic democrats either. They are green party nut jobs that think the solution to the problem is less people…not traditional democrat thoughts. Not unions, not social programs, not freedom of speech, equal rights. They want to undo industrialization, kill the tax base, etc. If you want to get through to real democrats, don’t make it us versus them, it will only get their backs against the wall. They’ll think this is political, and it isn’t. It’s about science and how a few scientists with an agenda…an anti human agenda… took over the world.

  75. AJ Abrams says:

    And as an fyi..I’m just as displeased with how CNN hasn’t covered this issue. It doesn’t mean that all of a sudden I’m going to be watching Fox news. They have their agenda as well and often don’t report or investigate important issues either.

    Instead I try and look at a variety of news sources and blogs. Then piece together truth from all the crap. Not easy to do, but what choice do I have? There doesn’t seem to be any news organizations that actually investigate and report the news without severe bias and commentary. It makes me ill.

  76. Leon Brozyna says:

    Here you go Dr. Curry — the whole mess in a nutshell. Why are skeptics so skeptical? Read the Wegman report and what a skeptic such as myself sees as the lack of any follow-up changes in the climate change community. And then Dr. Mann has the audacity to put out another fresh hockey stick this past Friday; a bit more twisted and warped than its predecessor, but still a hockey stick.

    And then read all the preceding comments; skepticism seems to be turning into cynicism. {rhetorical question} I wonder why? {/rhetorical question}

  77. Nicholas Britnell says:

    You are all doing an astonishingly good job of managing all this information. As a suggestion a fascinating exercise would be to create a league table of which climate “scientists” are the authors of the most suspect work and the number of suspect papers and which institution is investigating/not investigating claims of fraud and deceit. Expose the Universities and the institutions that are condoning this pseudo-science. As a further link, highlight which countries’ climate data has been compromisd by the suspect methodology. In that sense a layman like myself would get an overview of how much of the globe is being mis-represented and which countries are doing it.

  78. R Stevenson says:

    Perhaps after the investigation he will be given an award in the shape of a hockeystick. Whatever happens this endless publicly funded research by meteorologists into climate must be scaled back or ended.

  79. John Whitman says:

    Since Penn State is a state of Pennsylvania institution, it would be a appropriate for those citizens of Pennsylvania to immediately contact their state gov reps.

    This then would not be a discussion just within academics, some state gov representatives would be a good add to the review mix. I do not see how it could hurt.

    John

  80. vigilantfish says:

    A.J. Abrams
    Pamela Grey

    Those of us on the right have had to develop thick skins because we or our political beliefs are regularly vilified in our respective institutions of higher learning: we’ve learned to keep our political affiliations to ourselves, or let on very subtly what we believe to be true. It is actually a relief to find a quasi-scholarly community that does not share the left-leaning biases found in our places of work. I regard both of your continual contributions very highly, but would suggest that you not whine about political comments. The facts are that the left-dominated media only reluctantly addresses Climategate or refuses to acknowledge it at all. Do you suggest that we should self-censor in the name of some form of political correctness and ignore the facts?

  81. Micajah says:

    The ability of the Penn State folks to investigate thoroughly is belied by their misstatement of the NAS report.

    They claim the NAS panel opined that “Mann’s results were sound.”

    In fact, the NAS report said Mann’s results were, at best, “plausible.”

    Here’s the part of the report summary that states their opinion of Mann’s hype:

    “Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium. The substantial uncertainties currently present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes prior to about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion compared to the high level of confidence we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th century warming. Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium” because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales.”

    So, they go from “plausible” (for the belief that the last few decades were warmer than any “comparable period” in the past 1000 years) to “even less confidence” in the most important (to Mann’s propaganda machine) claim by Mann–namely the purportedly unprecedented warming in the 1990s.

    It’s too bad the NAS report didn’t simply say that Mann’s hype was “unsound,” so we could see whether the folks at Penn State can at least read, if not comprehend, the report.

  82. mkurbo says:

    AJ –

    You make some fair points, so much so that I will noodle on them…

    I understand what your core point is, but if in dropping the far “left” aspect we overlook how we ended up in this position, I’m not sure that’s healthy either ?

    FYI – I’m neither right or left. As one of my favorite comedians once said “if you’ve gone too far to the left or too far to the right, you’ve gone ..too FAR”

    Thanks for the response – Mk

  83. polistra says:

    The left/right discussion in this topic is missing one point. AGW began with leftist academics, but its main money source is Wall Street. The Carbon Credit Exchange was meant to be the next big bubble (especially appropriate term here) and many giant corporations see cap-n-trade as an excellent way to make life harder for small business. And the latter impulse is what drives Congress more than any ideology.

    McCain was on the green bandwagon long before Obama, and New Scientist mag considered McCain the preferred candidate in ’08 for green fanatics.

  84. MikeP says:

    My behind the scenes question is about the strange behavior of the Penn State Maths department. Just like the dog in the Sherlock Holmes’ story, the lack of any barking from a supposedly competent department is very strange.

  85. AJ Abrams says:

    Vigilantfish,

    Why would you need to self censor anything? Whining? Why would I be whining? I’m not a democrat. If you really feel the need to make this an left versus right issue, have at it! I am pointing out that it’s not a good idea because it really isn’t the point. I am very sorry that you have been vilified because you are conservative on THIS issue. However, I’d submit to you that many lefties are vilified by conservatives on other issues. So what? Going to keep doing it ad nauseam? When does it end?

    My point, which you obviously missed, is that if YOU, as a person, are really concerned about the bad science and what that has caused, then stick to the bad science as the talking point. If you are making it about conservatism versus liberal, then it says that you also don’t care about the bad science, only the politics. That is a shame.

    To do anything else speaks of your bias, your agenda.

    Free the data, free the code, free the debate. That isn’t a political statement.

  86. AJ Abrams says:

    Mk,

    How it happened wasn’t about liberals versus conservative. So making that a talking point isn’t going to solve the problem. Talking about transparency in science will however help. That is my point. If you want to get through to the masses..all the masses…keep hammering home – Free the data, free the code, free the debate.

    And thanks for your kind words. I’m neither right nor left. I am liberal of mind, but fiscally conservative, and a somewhat libertarian on my thoughts of a smaller government. What I am 100% is science orientated and that means questioning everything.

  87. Jordan says:

    We need to be patient and allow this issue to develop (I think it is customary to say “like a good wine” at this point).

    The UK recently had the MPs’ expenses scandal. UK newspaper, “the Telegraph” was masterful in keeping the issue in the public eye through a steady drip-drip of revelations. At first, it wasn’t really an issue in the public consciousness, but with the steady newsflow, the story followed a path of increasing public interest … and increasing outrage.

    The MPs were too close to the issue for their own good and many failed to anticipate how it would develop. There are numerous MPs who will now stand down at the next election, and some of them werre damned by their own protestations.

    The lesson for “climategate” is not to shoot all of the bullets too eagerly or too early in a mad dash for headlines. A drip-drip of revelations, concerns and debate will be better overall.

    The goal is to get the public to appreciate our reasonable alternative views with regard to MMGW. Climategate is an opportunity to do that. But the public has had the AGW meme drummed into it for more than a decade, and a change of mind will take time.

    Reviews and enquires are the necessary next stage. Penn State Uni will hold an internal enquiry and does not expect to enter into discussions while it is ongoing. Fair enough. But in the meantime, we should be patiently and diligently taking steps to add context to their findings and conclusions.

    For example, their announcement and findings should be given maximum publicity and scrutiny. If that can be done, there should be little reason to have concerns about whitewash.

  88. Arthur Glass says:

    When are we going to hear about ‘McCarthyite persecutions of scientists?’

    Oppenheimer, thou should’st be living in this hour!’

  89. PR Guy says:

    Here’s a list of the trustees of Penn State:

    http://www.psu.edu/trustees/

    Alumni should write to the Board fo Trustees at:

    The Pennsylvania State University
    Board of Trust205 Old Main
    University Park, PA 16802-1571
    Office: (814) 865-2521
    Fax: (814) 863-4631
    Email: bot@psu.edu

    As an Alumni, you should indicate that you are concerned that Dr. Mann’s actions have hurt the reputation of the University and have diminished the value of a Penn State diploma.

  90. John says:

    They will try whitewashing it until it is so clear to everyone that fraud was involved that they have to get rid of him. There is talk of a senate investigation and there is almost certainly going to be a British Parlimentary investgation. If they have political sense at all they will throw Mann to the wolves to stay clean themselves. How long it will take them to come to that conclusion I have no idea.

  91. Smokey says:

    PR Guy,

    Penn State alumni should also remind the Trustees that the alumni give huge amounts of $$$$$ to the school – voluntarily. That will make the Trustees sit up straight and pay attention.

  92. For info for newcomers on the North and Wegman reports, and how they were critically misreported so that folk thought Mann had been vindicated by both when he had not, see here

    For a whole newcomers’ Climate Science primer, which also explains how I did a U-turn from warmist to sceptic, click my name. Slightly out of date, it’s a personal approach but with all the key science, explained with pictures.

  93. CBDenver says:

    As a non-scientist, here is what I got out of the 2005 review of the temperature reconstruction studies:

    1. The field of developing temperature reconstructions from assorted proxy data is in its infancy

    2. Much work is needed to review and refine the methodology in creating temperature time series from multiple proxy studies

    3. The current state of the field of climate reconstruction is not yet solid enough to develop policy recommendations based on the studies to date.

  94. vigilantfish says:

    AJ Abrams,

    My apologies – I did misread you. I agree substantively with what you say to Mkurbo. But it has to be admitted that those with left-leaning political sympathies have been far more likely to buy into CAGW. I also believe that one way to get the attention of left-learning academics is to highlight the extent to which the political-economic agenda has been co-opted by major corporations and especially Big Oil as a route to higher profits. Once it becomes a “right”-wing conspiracy then the media will take more interest. In the meantime, indeed, science should have no politics and the only way forward is, as you say, to free the debate.

  95. Bill Newstead says:

    I imagine the authorities at Penn State (and UEA if it comes to that) are thinking about the potential legal implications. It appears that dissenting scientist may have been disadvantaged by a distorted peer review process and can thereby claim to have suffered damage to career and reputation ( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574557583017194444.html ). The leaked e-mails suggest this damage was intended and hence is an intentional tort attracting punitive damages.

    If the scientists who have been discriminated against decide to sue I for one will contribute to a fighting fund.

  96. George Turner says:

    It’s the legions of scientists who need to step up and get Penn to throw out the bad seed.

    In the public consciousness, climatology is the flagship project of science. I garners the most press coverage, dominates policy discussions, and reaches the widest audience. If this highest of all prestige branches of science is based on nothing but a bunch of cheap card tricks, fakery, and sabotage of peer-review and the entire scientific process, then in the future what will the public attitude be toward the rest of science? Toward all of science?

    Zen master Joe Six Pack say, “Science has lost face because its leaders are without honor.”

  97. DocMartyn says:

    Penn State is a very good university and its administrators have a serious problem on their hands. They are in the middle of a PR disaster, and they don’t know if they should stand by Mann or deliver up his head. They will probably do an internal investigation taking heads from Statistics, Physics and Chemistry and then ask Mann to supply his data-sets to them.
    Should he not persuade these people he has done nothing wrong; he and his department are toast.
    Universities are typically merciless at these things, donations dry up at any wiff of scientific misconduct.
    We should give the University the benefit of the doubt for 6 months and let them do their own investigation; they do after all have all his data.

  98. Indiana Bones says:

    Ask the fox: “Will you look into who killed these chickens?”

    The Penn State internal investigation if driven to clarity by alumni might produce corrective results. But a full investigation representing the national taxpayers – whose money has been thrown at climate research in great heaps – needs to come from Congress. And Parliament in the UK, AU and NZ.

    These are the nations that should lead the way to full disclosure of the malfeasance in ClimateGate.

  99. Lee Kington says:

    Many of us have been vocal about questioning various conduct by the pro-AGW side over the years. A good synopsis of some historic concerns is provided on Lucy Skywalker’s site under the THE CHALLENGE OF CORRUPT SCIENCE IS SERIOUS sub-title.

    http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Curious.htm

  100. CBDenver says:

    RE: polistra (12:54:41) :

    “The left/right discussion in this topic is missing one point. AGW began with leftist academics, but its main money source is Wall Street. The Carbon Credit Exchange was meant to be the next big bubble (especially appropriate term here) and many giant corporations see cap-n-trade as an excellent way to make life harder for small business. And the latter impulse is what drives Congress more than any ideology.”

    You are right, this is not a left/right issue as left/right is commonly defined. The progressive movement in the US was not, as is often portrayed, an attempt to exert government control over business, but rather an attempt by big business to squelch competition. The leftist historian Gabriel Kolko wrote about this in his book “The Triumph of Conservatism: A reinterpretation of American History 1900 – 1916″. The current attempts to use climate science to control business is just more of the same. Big business wants to control the “rules of the game” to further their interests. A relevant quote from Kolko demonstrates the point:

    “Progressivism was initially a movement for the political rationalization of business and industrial conditions, a movement that operated on the assumption that the general welfare of the community could be best served by satisfying the concrete needs of business. But the regulation itself was invariably controlled by leaders of the regulated industry, and directed toward ends they deemed acceptable or desirable. In part this came about because the regulatory movements were usually initiated by the dominant businesses to be regulated, but it also resulted from the nearly universal belief among political leaders in the basic justice of private property relations as they essentially existed, a belief that set the ultimate limits on the leaders’ possible actions. ”

    “It is business control over politics (and by “business” I mean the major economic interests) rather than political regulation of the economy that is the significant phenomenon of the Progressive Era. Such domination was direct and indirect, but significant only insofar as it provided means for achieving a greater end-political capitalism. Political capitalism is the utilization of political outlets to attain conditions of stability, predictability, and security—to attain rationalization –in the economy. Stability is the elimination of internecine competition and erratic fluctuations in the economy. Predictability is the ability, on the basis of politically stabilized and secured means, to plan future economic action on the basis of fairly calculable expectations. By security I mean protection from the political attacks latent in any formally democratic political structure. I do not give to rationalization its frequent definition as the improvement of efficiency, output, or internal organization of a company; I mean by the term, rather. the organization of the economy and the larger political and social spheres in a manner that will allow corporations to function in a predictable and secure environment permitting reasonable profits over the long run.”

  101. Roger Knights says:

    Will PSU ask Mann to hand over any e-mails etc. he’s written that might indicate nefarious activities similar to the ones being investigated? If they do, wow! If they don’t, why didn’t they?

    Any PSU graduates writing to them should suggest that his e-mails be examined.

  102. Robert E. Phelan says:

    John (13:11:02) :

    I, for one, am not in favor of seeing Dr. Mann or anyone else “thrown to the wolves”. It may well be that’s what will happen, but he, too, deserves his day in court. It will take quite some time to analyze the archive and put it into context…. and there may well yet be a second archive waiting to be released… but as damning as the evidence looks now, tossing Mann, Jones or anyone else out in hopes of shutting down the scandal would be just as reprehensible as what they are accused of… more so, in fact, since a thorough re-assessment of the science and the politics is clearly called for. If anything, we should be calling for more data collection.

    As far as this Left-Right, Liberal-Conservative dichotomy goes, maybe we need to think in other terms. Karl Marx in the 19th century and the Frankfurt School in the 20th developed the idea of “false consciousness”… that people were deceived into opposing other groups or classes and prevented from recognizing the commonality of interests that they shared. It might not be too far a stretch to suggest that, as C. Wright Mills put it, there is a “power elite” – one that is concerned with regularizing civic life and maintaining their own position.

  103. evanmjones says:

    Gavin is playing the “Ivory Tower” card.

  104. Davod says:

    It is all about the money. They have to produce something to keep the flow of tax money coming.

  105. Kay says:

    @ PSU-EMS-Alum (11:52:57) : So, yes, the alumni are the key because we can effect rapid change. Furthermore, we have already started discussing amongst ourselves what needs to be done.

    Thank you. I’ve written twice to Spanier first asking for Mann’s resignation, then to correct the university’s statement regarding NAS and their critique of the Hockey Stick. I’m a Pitt grad, though, so nothing I say will make any difference although it did make me feel better. I’m glad to hear that PSU alum are on top of this and I hope you get him ousted.

    @John Whitman: John Whitman (12:44:45) : Since Penn State is a state of Pennsylvania institution, it would be a appropriate for those citizens of Pennsylvania to immediately contact their state gov reps.

    I’ve already done that. I have also written to Ed Rendell. As a taxpayer in PA, I don’t another red cent to fund this man’s research. He should be in prison for misuse of funds.

  106. Spartan79 says:

    If PSU is serious about a credible investigation they should already have his office computers, and any others upon which e-mails and data might be stored, under lock and key until complete backups can be made of all data, e-mail traffic, etc. Otherwise if the lights are on late in Mann’s office tonight we can only imagine him feverishly at his keyboard hitting the delete key and running scrubber software.

  107. Mike D. says:

    rbateman (11:02:48): I think if they were actually serious about investigating Michael Mann, they would suspend him pending investigation.

    So as to prevent him from deleting all his emails and other files? Probably too late for that — most likely they’re already long gone. Unless they reside on the server! Oh dear! And Congress wants to see them, too!

    Imagine the sweating and twitching going on right now in the dark underbelly of “climate science”.

    I know it’s wrong to indulge in Schadenfreude, but it is delicious nonetheless.

  108. Mark says:

    I’ve long thought about calling Penn State and voicing my concern over Mann’s 1st hockey stick. I wonder if now is the time to call and complain about him…

  109. Arthur Reader says:

    mkurbo (11:48:50) :

    AJ Abrams (11:34:28) :

    AJ – please then explain why the left leaning MSM is not even responding, reporting, and/or investigating this scandal ? And did they, or did they not underwrite AGW for the last fifteen years ? Please – individual views on issues aside – this is very much a left driven agenda…

    I think the point is that the MSM have swallowed the AGW story as a long standing cataclysm story which generates lots of headlines, lots of sales, lots of schmoozing at climate conferences.

    While I accept that it has been pre-dominantly a left-wing (extreme left-wing obsession) and a lot of recognizeably socialist policies designed to derail the capitalist systems of the West, by no means do all left-wingers agree with it. I think that AJ Abrams has been very brave and standing up and calling “BS!” on this apocalyptic fever.

    People have been frightened to death by “climate chaos” and have filled the coffers of environmental groups like Greenpeace, the WWF and the Sierra Club to the tune of billions of dollars.

    As Charles Mackay wrote in 1841: “Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”

    That’s what’s happening. We live in interesting times.

  110. dr kill says:

    I wrote to Easterling and Spanier last week asking them to get out in front of this, that it is the biggest story in science in the past 15 years, and that the world is watching the response of my university. And this statement 3 days late is the best they can do? I wrote them again and told them it looks like a criminal investigation mat be required too. Let’s go State!

  111. dr kill says:

    I also think it’s suspicious that they rolled out the latest study the day after the SHTF. I emailed the PIO lady and told her that if they just thought we were all too stupid to care they were wrong.

  112. Roger Knights says:

    I hope there is someone taking the role of “prosecutor” in this investigation; otherwise the investigators, not being well-versed in the subject, could be taken in by the defendant’s glib excuses, as the FOI officers at EAU were.

  113. Kay says:

    @ MIke D: So as to prevent him from deleting all his emails and other files? Probably too late for that — most likely they’re already long gone. Unless they reside on the server! Oh dear! And Congress wants to see them, too!

    I’d bet a year’s salary they’re on a server somewhere. I know where I work, every single file is stored on a central server in addition to your laptop, desktop, whatever, The server is then backed up by magnetic tape. Mann probably has personal copies of his stuff, too.

    The truth is out there. Someone, somewhere, has that information.

  114. Kay says:

    @ Mark (15:16:58) : I’ve long thought about calling Penn State and voicing my concern over Mann’s 1st hockey stick. I wonder if now is the time to call and complain about him…

    Department: EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND PROVOSTS OF UNIVERSITY
    URL: http://www.psu.edu/provost/
    Address: 201 OLD MAIN
    Telephone Number: +1 814 865 2505
    Fax Number: +1 814 863 8583
    Administrative Area: PRESIDENTS OFFICE

    The president’s email address is president@psu.edu

  115. Ron de Haan says:

    “No public discussion of the matter will occur while the University is reviewing the concerns that have been raised”.
    This means bugger off and stick your nose in other Mann’s business.

    They will stall their finish their investigations when Copenhagen has finished with a signed contract, otherwise they will stall to after the Mexico Meeting.
    They won’t kick in their own windows voluntarily.

    About the left/right discussions:
    The left green propaganda machine is doing the field work, they brainwash the masses, organize demonstrations, create the smoke curtains but big capital is pulling the strings.

  116. mkurbo says:

    AJ –

    I went for a walk on the beach and thought about it and I will have to respectfully disagree with you. Your points are pure in nature and thoughtful, but that’s not really the state of reality that we have all lived in this last decade plus…

    This AGW movement was born of the far left – do you disagree ? It was driven into a full blown monster by the mainstream left over the last twenty years. To make it strictly a science/issue debate at this point would be just as disingenuous as their current position on Climategate of “nothing to see here, move along”. If you are suggesting that the movement was hijacked along the way by far left nut jobs (your term), then that is an issue for the left to deal within their own realm. If it was purely a science debate, would Gore and such be involved and why did we (skeptics) lose the global marketing war ?

    You said; “If you want to get through to real democrats, don’t make it us versus them, it will only get their backs against the wall”. Well the Dems voted 211 out of 255 (83%) for Cap and Trade which is constructed on the cornerstone (foundation) of AGW. So if “real” Dems don’t feel that way, then they need to get impassioned and run those Dems that voted for AGW out of office. I would think it’s healthy to get their backs against the wall so they wake-up.

    Here is my point and the real problem;

    If you get politically correct and wash away the “left” roots of this movement, you are essentially manipulating the data. You might as well say the warm period did not exist. For the records (history) to be properly reviewed by generations to come, the warm period is important and so is labeling AGW as a leftist propaganda movement. Anything less is revisionist history and invites a repeat of the current situation.

    I would not be on this website if my daughter had not come home one night from school and say “Daddy, why are we killing the polar bears with man-made global warming and will the planet be ok when I grow up ?” At that point I decided to get involved and I’ll be damned if I’m going to let anybody “re-label” this movement as anything other than what it is – the spinning of natural warming/cooling cycles of the earth into a fairy tale of catastrophe climate alarmism to support a far left agenda and take advantage of people worldwide – do you see the end game of this movement differently AJ ?

    I respect all of those who have put so much work into fighting this viral infection of a movement. Dr. Spencer has been kind enough to write me many times over the years as I battled Wikipedia and their bias on global warming. If they think we should “re-label” for the greater good, then I would begrudgingly agree, but I beg you all to think about the young minds that have been affected with this made-up malady (AGW) and ask yourself if we should not let the truth be reflected on how this came to be ???

    BTW I think all these discussions are very healthy !

  117. Dieter says:

    The cynic in me thinks that this “investigation” will conclude with a slap on the wrist for Mr. Mann. That way the reputation of the university will remain intact, and Mann’s career can continue on, but with one black spot in his file.

    Admittedly, this cynicism exists because the entire climategate caper has been running on for years. It’s hard to see all these “researchers” – and the institutions to which they are related – ready to take any kind of fall.

    Four or five careers may be ruined, but that will be followed by a big broom and an enormous effort to brush it under one very large rug.

  118. Nicholas Britnell says:

    You are all doing an astonishingly good job of managing all this information.
    As a suggestion, a fascinating exercise would be to create a league table of which climate “scientists” are the authors of the most suspect work and of how many suspect papers and which institution is investigating/not investigating claims of fraud and deceit.

    Expose the Universities and the institutions that are condoning this pseudo-science.

    (As an added bonus highlighting which countries’ climate data has been compromisd by the suspect methodology e.g. do we know if Russian data is being published in a compromised manner too? would help a layman like myself get an overview of how much of the globe is being mis-represented and how.)

    I’ve recently sent 2 letters (by e-mail) to my local broadsheet (newspaper) regarding some of the issues unfolding from Mr. McIntyres’ work and Climategate and they didn’t even acknowledge receipt of the letters. Conclusion – not important.

    The MSM, apparantly, no longer investigates, they need stories served on a plate -with a dessert -and WUWT and CA are doing their work for them. So its up to us to keep writing to any and all agencies, government offices, local governmet or institution that is relying on the IPCC for guidance as to public and private future policy (so far my letters are to the PM, the Energy Minister and the Senate commitee for Energy, Environment and Natural Resources, I’m starting at the top and working down, its just as important to start at the bottom and work up, keep talking to friends and family and keep typing – if the last few weeks show anything it is that steady reasoned pressure does make a difference and it will get the ball rolling – keep promoting WUWT.

    Copenhagen is coming.

  119. Richard says:

    @Richard Britnell
    Have you noticed the cone of silence over the MSM in Canada? The Globe & Mail, The Star (no surprise there), CTV and CBC (again no surprise there) with their lead stories on Tiger Woods, Toronto Humane Society and oh yeah, Copenhagen but wherever someone can post a comment, the forums are littered with Climategate news. The only media outlet running anything is the National Post and it has done so consistently from the start.

    It would be interesting to see how tall this mountain of evidence for AGW would be once any journal article using the CRU, NOAA and GIS data along with Jones, Mann et al references is eliminated. Maybe a molehill? Perhaps this would a job for Naomi Oreskes, hehe.

  120. Richard says:

    Sorry, that should be @Nicholas Britnell.

    I’m Richard. LOL

  121. Back2Bat says:

    Again, how do you explain me? Pam

    A pleasant surprise.

    Actually, both left and right are on the same side of the tyranny spectrum. They merely disagree on WHAT should be forced on us via government.

    This country will have grown up when we agree to disagree and allow the free market place of ideas to function.

  122. tallbloke says:

    “No public discussion of the matter will occur while the University is reviewing the concerns that have been raised”

    Oh Yeah?

    I wouldn’t make a bet on that if I were you Mr spokesman

  123. KF says:

    Here’s Mann’s interview with the local newspaper…

    http://www.centredaily.com/news/education/penn_state/story/1646329.html

    Mann said that was an email sent to him, “and can in no way be taken to indicate approval of, let alone compliance with, the request. I did not delete any such email correspondences.”

    Read more: http://www.centredaily.com/news/education/penn_state/story/1646329.html#ixzz0YDBfHoV7

  124. Bill Illis says:

    The investigation will depend on how serious the University takes these issues.

    If they take them seriously, there will be no problem finding enough evidence to put Mann away for good. If not, it is easy to assume the problem will go away eventually.

    But don’t underestimate Mann’s persuasive ability. All the questionable research and math he has undertaken should have put him away long ago. Yet he is almost the star of the climate research community and seems to have the ability to persuade half the editorial board of a journal to resign on mass over what was actually a pretty good paper. He does seem to have some unusual although not altruistic talents.

  125. David P says:

    PSU is a school famous for its “White-Outs”. Maybe JoePa can offer some suggestions to the Admins.

  126. Arthur Reader says:

    From the Penn State press release:

    Professor Michael Mann is a highly regarded member of the Penn State faculty conducting research on climate change. Professor Mann’s research papers have been published in well respected peer-reviewed scientific journals.

    So was Dr Woo Suk Hwang. He was published in the most prestigious of scientific journals and was courted by nearly every genetics lab in the Western World for his expertise.

    And he was still a scientific fraud.

  127. OzzieAardvark says:

    Hoping for anything from Penn State is simply wishful thinking. What would be more interesting is whether the Climategate political fallout will reach Dr. Mann. A useful thing in this regard would be a subpoena that requests what e-mails he sent following his response to Phil Jones’ request that he delete e-mails related to AR4. The two e-mails follow:
    ————————-
    Phil Jones wrote:
    Mike,
    Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
    Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
    We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
    I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
    Cheers
    Phil
    ————————-
    Michael Mann replied:
    Hi Phil,
    laughable that CA would claim to have discovered the problem. They would have run off to the Wall Street Journal for an exclusive were that to have been true.
    I’ll contact Gene about this ASAP. His new email is: generwahl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
    talk to you later,
    mike
    ————————-
    So did Dr. Mann follow-up on his commitment to contact “Gene”?
    An interesting question that I hope will be answered. I don’t expect that Dr. Mann or Penn State will come forward. That said, the individual and the institution may want to consider the implications of not doing so and the consequences of same being made public via subpoena. Congress can do that and underestimating Senator Inhoff may be… Choosing Poorly :-)

    OA

  128. Henry chance says:

    I suspect some donors may put some heat on the school. Until then, the school will justify itself and Meltdown Mann.

  129. J. Peden says:

    Back2Bat (17:46:23) :

    Actually, both left and right are on the same side of the tyranny spectrum. They merely disagree on WHAT should be forced on us via government.

    You are certainly correct in excluding both Classical Liberals and True Conservatives from residing on the tyrannical side.

  130. sHx says:

    “The University is looking into this matter further… No public discussion of the matter will occur while the University is reviewing the concerns that have been raised.”

    I don’t know of this has been mentioned in comments above, but I see no reason to cheer the news of an investigation. The quote, when read in conjunction with the unreserved praise of the good professor earlier in the statement, comes across like an attempt to provide relief to Mann from an expected assault for interviews from mainstream media. Micheal Mann can at any time refuse to comment saying that the matter is under investigation by the University. This is a pre-emptive strike at MSM to back off.

  131. BernieL says:

    Pamela Gray (11:04:59) :
    “If you boil this down between left and right, you miss the point and are destined to repeat the mistake.”

    Yes Pamela is right, and one of the mistakes is this Good/Evil binary on both sides of US politics. To non-Americans, the level of aggression can be frightening to witness. And we ask: To what end?

    If you want to win this debate as a vehicle for an entire political agenda, then perhaps this is not the place. But even if it is, then it might be counter-productive. Do you want to win green leftie types like Pamela and myself, or do you only want to crush the enemy? If the latter, then the enemy has succeeded in turning you into their mirror image. I say, if we care for science we would not behave in this way.

    So, if you want to win over us deluded greenies – yes, indeed, deluded we were/are – then perhaps you could make some room in the house for us right now, because as you might imagine, we are experiencing daily the hostility of the traitor.

    Try to imagine a bunch of good folks out there who like their national parks, who like clean air, who like watching whales, and who, perhaps, think that all nations might be able to get together one day to solve our shared problems of poverty, war, over-population etc….and who are even members, as I am, of environmental organisations. Would these folks in their hearts all support tyranny to these ends? Now imagine that many of these folks have not yet had the time or motivation to question the wild claims of melting ice caps, polar bears etc. But they trust what they are told.

    Is there good grounds for their trust in science? I believe so.

    Crichton might have been right that there are precedents to such self-supporting delusions (nuclear winter, passive smoking) but, in magnitude, this Climate alarmism that we are witnessing right now, as far as I can see, IT HAS NO PRECIDENT in modern science.

    The trust in science that we nature-lovers, we third-world bleeding-hearts, the trust we have in science and scientific institutions (like the RoySoc, and now the IPCC) has on the whole been well earned over the last 400 years – I dont mean blemish-free, I mean, since Galileo, pretty trust worthy, compare with astrology, and apocalyptic visions, which saw a demise in this time.

    We have gotta show these nature-lovers, deluded-in-trust, that this climate science does not deserve their trust, for it is not what they think it is. We now have a truly marvellous opportunity to do this by just sticking to the science while pointing to the very unscientific behaviour of these apocalyptic zealots who now command the authority of this domain of science.

    And then in doing so we may indeed show these well-meaning folk more than this. We may show them that the new leaders of the movement riding this alarmist wave (eg Gore, Flannery) are not their friend, they do not deserve their supports…and that, yes indeed, many of those riding this wave are doing so for the very opportunistic reasons that you folks on the right has quite rightly been proclaiming all along.

  132. D. King says:

    No public discussion of the matter will occur while the University is reviewing the concerns that have been raised.

    h/t Joe D’Aleo

    Funny.

  133. TonyB says:

    In an earlier post I said I was interested to know if the Susan Mann at Penn State was Micael Mann’s wife-she is listed in the IPCC TAR4 as one of the 2500 contributors (translated by the media as scientists).

    Susan is a proof reader so would be well qualified to read someones work and logically it would be from another person else at Penn State University. The question is, was she proof reading her husband’s work or is she entirely unrelated (but still not a scientist)

    Thought readers would enjoy this snippet from the Home page of Michael Mann- I can’t repeat the few words here as it would lose the impact but who said satire is dead
    http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/job/job.html

    Incidentally it is Michael’s birthday in December-he is 44 -should we at WUWT send him a birthday card?

    Tonyb

  134. sHx says:

    BernieL above chaneled almost all of my thoughts. Thank you, Bernie.

    There is no denying that the political roots of the AGW alarmism lies in the environmentalist movement. But if you want to counter the AGW alarmism it would be wrong to frame the issue as a left/right political issue. The best way to deal with it is by showing the shaky scientific basis of the AGW theory. Note that the Green movement has championed many other causes too, and the reason that the AGW has surpassed the other causes is because of the persuasive aspect of the AGW science.

    I have been an Australian Greens voter for more than a decade. I turned a deaf ear to the AGW debate and sat on the fence on this particular issue for more the same duration because my politics conflicted with what I learned in my history and philosophy of science classes at the UNSW.

    It is nonsense to call the new science of climatology and its AGW theory ‘settled’. The geocentric model of the universe was ‘settled’ for more than two thousand years. Few dared to challenge ‘the consensus’ even though there was speculation as old as geocentrism that it was the Earth that revolved around the Sun, not other way round. There was a reason why Copernicus did not publish his heliocentric universe during his lifetime.

    Much that I am still a Green in my politics, I have decided not to vote for the Greens anymore. As long as the AGW dominates the Green agenda I am going to vote informal, with a message to the Greens as well as to the Labor party written on my voting paper. I am sick and tired of the AGW alarmism trumping other environmentalist causes. Whatever happened to the world poverty, water pollution, GM foods, overfishing, labour rights, etc, etc? Now we are going to see the nuclear power making a come back because the AGW ‘threat’, based on questionable science, was blown out of all proportions.

    I recommend to my fellow Australian leftists to do the same: vote informal with a written message to your voting papers. This is the most effective way to get the message across since every single vote is scrutinised by all the party apparatchiks.

  135. sHx says:

    Ahh, I guess it goes without saying that Aussies should never vote for the Liberals or the Nationals. Vote informal or independent if you must, but not the Liberals or the Nationals.

  136. Mike Lorrey says:

    The key in these sorts of investigations is to find out who at Penn State is willing to lead the charge against him. When Bellisiles was caught committing fraud, it took having some faculty sympathetic to the gun-rights cause to make a significant case and get him stripped of tenure and fired.

    Beyond Penn State, every organization that has given Mann awards for his fraudulent work needs to be contacted to pursue having his awards rescinded, as was also the case with Bellisiles.

  137. David Brewer says:

    I agree they’ll probably just issue some tut-tuts about most of the political shenanigans Mann has been involved in, as revealed by the e-mails.
    However, the investigation will sure not do any good to his scientific reputation. His scientific papers are full of statistical blunders, including inverted series, botched PCA methodology, geographical misallocations of climate records and so on. The leaked e-mails show that practically all the competent people in the IPCC team knew that Mann’s work was poor:
    Briffa: “I think it is crap. I am sick to death of Mann stating his reconstruction represents the tropical area just because it contains a few (poorly temperature representative ) tropical series. He is just as capable of regressing these data again any other “target” series , such as the increasing trend of self-opinionated verbage he has produced over>the last few years , and … (better say no more)” (e-mail thread 1024334440, June 17, 2002)
    Cook: “Of course, I agree with you. We both know the probable flaws in Mike’s recon, particularly as it relates to the tropical stuff.” (idem.)
    Mitchell: “Is the PCA approach robust? Are the results statistically significant? It seems to me that in the case of MBH [Mann, Bradley and Hughes, the Hockey Stick paper] the answer in each is no.” http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/john-mitchells-review-comments/#more-32
    Osborn: “I do wish Mike had not rushed around sending out preliminary and incorrect early responses – the waters are really muddied now. He would have done better to have taken things slowly and worked out a final response before publicising this stuff. Excel files, other files being created early or now deleted is really confusing things!” (1068652882, November 12, 2003)
    Even Mann’s co-author Bradley had had enough of Mann’s pompous self-congratulations as early as 1999 when he forwarded a particularly oily Mann missive to Briffa with the heading “vomit” and a terse cover note: “Excuse me while I puke.” (926681134, May 14, 1999)
    But you don’t get sacked for incompetence, temper, or vanity. You get sacked for dishonesty. I suspect Mann will still get off, but he does have a few problems here too. He appears to have said he was going to propose Phil Jones for an AGU post (which Jones got) based on an H-score which Jones himself had told him was exaggerated (1213201481, c.June 2008). This is the sort of gamesmanship that may appear minor compared to all Mann’s scientific goofups, but which is considered very naughty in academic circles. There may well be other examples, as the whole atmosphere was that the end justified the means.
    Mann is going to be squirming for quite some time.

  138. DonS says:

    I found it fun to go to the Penn State Online page, devoted to luring unsuspecting undergrads, and ask the following question: if I attend Penn State in the fall of 2010, will Dr Mann still be there?

    The answers are automated, so of course there are none remotely related to the question. So I asked the question several times, hoping to lure a human out of the woodwork. No luck. They’re probably all down at the rink.

  139. Mark says:

    It would be funny to watch Gavin playing dumb as he tries to deflect and obfuscate, if all this did not involve trillions of dollars of ecomonic activity.

  140. Mark says:

    I have to agree with others. The university is helping Mann. He can now duck interviews and questions by claiming an investigation is in progress. As that drags on, people will lose interest (they hope) and they will figure out how to whitewash whatever they find. When criticized for the the cover up, the true believers will say it is time to move on and they hope, others will be tired of the controversy as well.

  141. DaveF says:

    Speaking as someone who has been described as being “slightly to the right of Attila the Hun”, I’m delighted that there are people of all shades of political opinion who contribute to this site. It shows that there are a lot of people out there that can think for themselves and who object to being lied to. And that’s a relief.

  142. Gary Pearse says:

    I get a twitch every time the phrase “well respected, peer-reviewed journals” is trotted out. It was the very ClimateGate synod that was the arbitre of “well respected” and they were clear that well-respected referred only to those journals that toed the “heading-in-to-hell’s-fires” line. The outcome of this review has also been telegraphed by the term “seminal” in reference to Mann’s reconstruction – lauding the scientific work is not a good start into an objective review of the issues. I predict they will whitewash Mann’s work and then perhaps give him a sideways promotion.

  143. Jean S says:

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=771

    “I would not reference Wegman report as if it is a publication, i.e. a legitimate
    piece of scientific literature. Its a piece of something else! It should be cited in
    such a way as to indicate it is not a formal publication, wasn’t peer-reviewed, i.e.
    could be references as a “criticism commissoned by Joe Barton (R, Exxon).”

  144. tarpon says:

    Cooking the investigation? Nah, you wouldn’t expect a University run by ….

  145. Melissa says:

    I will be sure to contact both of Pa. ‘s senators to look into this-it’s bad enough that university’s get financial funding from all taxpayer’s, but this AGW garbage has gone on long enough.

  146. Some Guy says:

    Mann and the rest of the Hockey Team were caught red-handed cooking the books. If Penn State keeps him on the faculty, it will cease to be a respectable institution.

  147. Bob S says:

    This investigation is considerably more dangerous for PSU than the previous one.

    The previous investigation about the hockey stick was about whether he had waterboarded his data, which he clearly had.

    This investigation involves felonious violations of FOIA, and conspiracy to do the same. He didn’t waterboard data, he was involved in deleting it. No doubt the PSU legal staff will be involved, and no doubt they will remind the investigators and the school of this.

    In addition, while it true to say it is all about the money, it’s all about next year’s money and the year after, not this year’s money or the year before.

    The question PSU faces is can this guy keep getting grantw, are powerful alumni upset (powerful meaning big contributors) and remember, PSU is owned by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which means this is most certainly not a private matter.

    And that’s leaving aside the question of his potential criminal liability, and, the lawyers will not doubt observe, he engaged in this behavior while on the job using school equipment.

    Add to that a severe budget crisis at both PSU and the State and my betting is that Dr. Mann is on his way out. The big decision for the school is how to do so with the least damage to the careers of the insiders who remain. My guess is they will soon be praying for a federal/state criminal investigation as a means to leave the decision as to what to do with this guy in someone else’s hands.

  148. crypticguise says:

    Make all of Mann’s data public and have it checked by others “publicly”. This garbage “science” has to STOP now. Penn State and other Universities are complicit with E Anglia and NASA with [snip]

    Enough already!

  149. MikeS says:

    Pamela et al… the mistake you are making is assuming that this was ever about science. It was not.

    This has been, from the beginning, a plan to force a totalitarial political agenda onto the world by well meaning putzes.

    When communism went tits to the sky in the 80’s, AGW came along and the same players saw an opportunity to do by other means what they had been trying to do via politics, take control of society for “its own good” and what better justification for that goal than to “save the world”.

    James Cagney once made the statement that he could play such convincing gangsters because he understood that they did not see themselves as bad people. Evil people NEVER believe they are evil and the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

    …and the cake is a lie!

  150. mkurbo says:

    MikeS (18:20:34) :

    I agree very strongly. Pamela, AJ and several others have tried to argue that the “left” moniker should be removed from this issue and the debate has no political basis. I’m sorry they feel so uncomfortable with those on their end of the political spectrum, but it is what it is…

    This movement was born on the far left and perpetuated over twenty years by the left. To remove that part of the record would be to remove the warm period for our climate e history.

    Sorry, no revisionist history here…

  151. Brian Macker says:

    Investigate so that the claim can be made that it was investigated and nothing found.

  152. hmmm says:

    Joe Paterno and Micahael Mann,
    Penn State giveth and Penn State taketh away

  153. Nostromo says:

    Nothing will happen to Mann. Heck, look how hard U of C had to work to get rid of faux Indian plagiarizer and professional charlatan Ward Churchill.

  154. Smokey says:

    I think Nostromo is right. Any internal investigation will be a whitewash.

    If Penn State wanted the truth, they would employ a credible outside investigator.

  155. Nostromo says:

    “Climategate doesn’t cut it. I propose, “Mann-caused global warming.”

  156. gdn says:

    “The resulting 2006 report of the NAS panel (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676) concluded that Mann’s results were sound and has been subsequently supported by an array of evidence that includes additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions.”

    No. They concluded that his results, though gained through inappropriate methods, were supported by certain other works against which they did no due diligence and were unaware of that these other works had the same core flaws as those they condemned in his work (plus the one which didn’t exist yet).

  157. I believe that Michael Mann in the spring of 2006, the year following Katrina, said that the east coast of the US would be hit with many devastating huricaines in the coming fall season due to global warming. It is three and a half years later and no strong hurricaine has hit anywhere on the US mainland. How many wrong predictions and tampered records must we endure before the this hoax is fully discredited? There are Many billions of misspent federal funds and crippling economic regulations at risk.

  158. mkurbo says:

    robert bryant (09:18:00) :

    Robert – That’s why we must prosecute these individuals. It’s not just the misspent dollars, but think about all the wasted energy worldwide ?

Comments are closed.