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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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!
Alvin (11:30:51) :
Then neither should Michael Mann be allowed to publicly address the issue and still be representing Penn State.
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.
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?
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…
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.
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/
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.
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.
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.
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.
25million and counting. Well done Anthony. Soon to overtaken by google hits on “Climategate”
hopefully we will find out if global warming is Mann made or Jones made ?
http://Group912.org
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.
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)
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.
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!
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.