Penn State Report Released

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/07/01/climategates-death-rattle/
“Hear that choking sound? That’s the dying gasps of Climategate.”
Yeah right Phil, that’s why my rating of Awe for your site dropped to well below zero.

I’m particularly intrigued by the inclusion of the particular response by Richard Lindzen. There are a couple of theories at CA about it. One was that the blatancy of the putdown is chilling and threatening, the other that the inclusion of his comment was an indirect dig at the first part of the inquiry which dismissed the first three allegations.
I don’t know. It is very odd that it is there. A chunk of grime thrusting through the whitewash.
Next step is Piccola starting an investigation in the state legislature. I can’t wait for the cries of ‘witch hunt’ from the usual suspects.
But wow is the alarmosphere dancing the night away with tom toms, and frenzied dances.
=============

I find this type of protectionism through out our higher education system of protecting the “old boys club” no matter how terrible the science is.
Science is a joke and only hurting the furtile minds that are absorbing this garbage.
Actual physical evidence is put aside for the current theories that protect the current system. What should be classed as actual science is in a class of psuedo-science and fiction is what we are left with.
Gravity should be classed as a psuedo-science as it is theories with a proxy for an outcome.
Meanwhile centrifigal force is classed as psuedo-science even though actual physical evidence can recreate and measure this.
Is it any wonder science knowledge is limited proxies and models that are incorrect?

Is there any whitewash left for my fence? The pejorative word “stolen” with regard to the CRU emails gives the whole thing away. Sorry Charlie, Mann was a conclusions first, supporting data and manipulation of that data, and analysis of that data using methods to produce his conclusions scientist. I would not trust him to mow my lawn.

I am waiting patiently for our litigious friends in the US to take Mann et al to court.
In the meantime, why not a sort of “Scope’s” trial for AGW? It would make for thought-provoking TV and would help clarify the issues for the soap-opera crowd.

Awesome!!!!! A great day for science. 🙂

The bar for “fraud” is high. The bar for sound science is low. Peer review is pal review. Diogenes is still looking for an honest man…

I wonder when the public (typically referred to in the Real Climate blog as “uneducated trolls”) will finally make a logical leap to the only one possible conclusion that all the system for funding the sciences is rigged. Asking committee comprised of academics, this is like asking a peer reviewers selected from the mafia if this particular drug dealer’s activity was in the range of typically accepted practices. Of course, it was from their point of view! All Mr.Mann’s activities were exactly what is accepted and required for generating funding, making publications and receiving tenure. Now, if you ask outside of the mafia, i.e. among layman, then you might get a different answer. However, fist, someone should really explain to the public in all the details of how carriers in modern academia are made. My favorite choice for such alternative review panel comprised of “ordinary” public would be Leo Szilard… Oh shoot, he’s dead! May be Richard Feynman… Also dead! Ok, how about Jerome Ravetz and more people like him. May be then the public will become aware of the fact of how our sciences and engineering academia is misusing enormous amount of funding coming from our tax dollars and of how the education of American students is ignored and of how they are substituted with the students from “third world” who are much more complaint. Well, may be you, Mr. McIntyre, should create a think tank for the sake of public education in this matter. I’ll be willing to help you.

Judith Curry posted over at CA:
“In terms of (internal) process and documentation, this report scores much higher than the UK reports. But the internal committee probably won’t satisfy people in the state of PA, we’ll see. In any event, in terms of formal research misconduct as defined by Penn State (which is a fairly common definition), I don’t think Mann is guilty, particularly during the time period he has been at Penn State (which is relatively short). Issues related to standards of ethics and professional behavior can be discussed, but I am not seeing evidence of any formal research misconduct. Back to a point i’ve made earlier, the real issue is the shenanigans that took place in the preparation and response to reviewers in the IPCC reports. IMO, the blame is on the system and people higher up in that food chain than Mann.”
Well, that just further tars my opinion of “academic research.” So they found him not guilty based on how popular he is (read: how much grant money he brings to Penn State), and worse, based on “a definition that is fairly common”. That leaves me to conclude that they’re saying his conduct is just fine because everyone does it. That’s an argument your kids use when trying to get out of trouble! It’s also fallacious–argumentum ad populum AKA appeal to consensus, which is what the entire AGW house of cards is based on.
Not very stringent codes of conduct then. In other words, they can pretty much do whatever they want and still get away with it.
This is why Mann’s actions at UVA need to be investigated. Most of the really nefarious stuff with the hockey stick took place when he was at UVA and even UMass. He got to Penn State when he was already at the top of the food chain.
After reading the report, I am astounded that the committee wouldn’t allow Lindzen to comment on the first three points, nor does it appear they even bothered to talk to Steve McIntyre. That tells you all you need to know.

To Jerry Mead:
No this one isn’t the best. Gavin Schmidt from NASA GISS is the best. In my humble opinion, the second best is Ken Caldeira from Carnegie Institution for Science’s Department of Global Ecology (spreading the sulphuf oxide particles in upper atmosphere to cool down the planet supported by Gates and Bono). Those two are the rock stars. The funny coincidence (?) is that KC was a post-doc at Penn State.

Mann’s video:
What an unbiased interviewer … “misuse of stolen emails”

I found this segment particularly jaw dropping (aside from the overall pat on the head result) – from Dr. Easterling’s testimony:

He responded by stating that much of what we know about climate change is the result of a combination
of observation and numerical modeling, making the classic idea of falsification of a
hypothesis, which may be applicable to a laboratory science, of limited applicability in
the study of climate change. Thus, even though there are a number of highly
sophisticated, physically sound models that are used to analyze and predict various
features of the earth’s climate system, human judgments are invariably involved, and a certain amount of subjectivity is introduced.

Emphasis mine – basically, I read this as his position is “we’re special, the regular rules really don’t apply to us, so it’s fine if we make stuff up as we go along, and that’s just fine”.
Mann is only symptomatic of a much, much larger problem if this is the widespread viewpoint amongst the ivory tower set.