Climategate: PA group demands independent investigation in Mann's research

From the Commonwealth Foundation press release

The release of embarrassingly candid emails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia has intensified, if not vindicated, suspicions that scientific misconduct has played a significant role in fueling alarmism over supposed catastrophic manmade global warming.

Just days after news broke about what has been dubbed “Climategate,” Penn State University (PSU) announced that it would investigate the conduct of Michael Mann, a professor in PSU’s Department of Meteorology and a prominent figure in the Climategate emails.

While PSU is to be commended for recognizing that Climategate is a serious matter and that an investigation into Michael Mann’s conduct is warranted, the investigation constitutes a conflict of interest for the university. Mann’s climate work brings enough visibility, prestige, and revenue to PSU to legitimately call into question the university’s ability to do a thorough and unbiased investigation.

To avoid this glaring conflict of interest and ensure that the investigation of Mann is credible, the Pennsylvania General Assembly should commission an external and independent investigation into Mann’s potential scientific misconduct.

PDF Version To download the full PDF version, please click here

Paul Chesser writes at the American Thinker:

The Commonwealth Foundation in Harrisburg, Pa. does not trust Pennsylvania State University to investigate Climategate hockey sticker Michael Mann, because of the millions of dollars that his research brings to the university. The foundation today released a 12-page policy brief which addresses Mann’s Climategate emails, the significance of his role, and why the university has a conflict of interest in investigating him. Commonwealth held a press conference today at the state capitol about their report:

The hockey stick controversy and Climategate emails reveal that Michael Mann may have committed significant and intentional scientific misconduct, including improper data manipulation, inappropriately shielding research methods and results from others, and engaging in a number of forms of retaliation against those who publicly challenge his research results.

Were scientific misconduct a criminal matter, the aforementioned facts might be said to constitute “probable cause” for a search warrant. Analogously, these facts provide probable cause for an investigation into Mann’s conduct at PSU.

Although PSU has announced that it will investigate Climategate, given Mann’s financial and reputational value to the university, and the likely embarrassment resulting from an adverse finding concerning his conduct, there is good reason to believe that a PSU-managed investigation might amount to little more than a whitewash.

Commonwealth Foundation goes on to recommend that the state General Assembly commission an external, independent investigation. Pennsylvania State Senate Education Committee Chairman Jeffrey Piccola has already promised Penn State that if its investigation is a whitewash, he will do one that isn’t.

h/t to reader “boballab”

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Michael In Sydney
January 12, 2010 12:54 pm

Reading those emails where they are asking for revisions to global warming statements in order to appear more certain or more alarming reminds me of how Blair was accused of having the reports on Iraq’s WMD programme ‘sexed up’.
I’ll be interested to see if the left ever uses that terminology to discredit any of those who played politics when they were supposed to be doing scientific research.

King of Cool
January 12, 2010 12:55 pm

Slightly OT but, In Australia, the consequences of unnecessarily scaring the wits out of people is coming home to roost. A woman and her three children were killed in a South Australian road crash yesterday after returning home after packing up and leaving because of a “catastrophic” fire danger rating. Ironically, heavy rain is partly blamed for the accident which had made the roads slippery.
Authorities are now reviewing their decision to introduce the “Catastrophic” category after ex-fire chief Phil Koperberg said that it was over the top and inappropriate. “Catastrophic” conditions were forecast for half of South East Australia but after the cool change went through there were no recorded major incidents of loss of property or deaths except the road accident listed above.

Calvin Ball
January 12, 2010 12:58 pm

Mann is like manna to PSU. Why would they want to disturb such a capable rainmaker in the meteorology dept?

January 12, 2010 1:04 pm

Ahhh, but whether anything happened or not, they still have the news item ” in January 2010 Australia issued Catestrophic Fire warnings” to add to climate catastrophy trophy case.

James F. Evans
January 12, 2010 1:11 pm

Yes, an outside investigation is warranted.
The Commonwealth Foundation is to be commended for spearheading the effort.
The logic & reasoning for requesting the investigation is sound.
Let’s hope the Pennsilvania Legislature takes action.

January 12, 2010 1:12 pm

Of course Penn State cannot be trusted to conduct an objective investigation. First, they have too much to lose in prestige and credibility -not to mention additional grant funding – should they admit to wrong doing. Also, as liberal academics they will most likely be biased towards the results of Mann’s research and thus will tend to overlook any flaws in the scientific processes that he applied.
Any internal investigations will simply continue the polarization between the AGW believers and skeptics.

Scott Covert
January 12, 2010 1:13 pm

In the correlation does not equal causation Pakistan blames the northern hemisphere cooling on the US. Aparently we pierced a hole in the atmosphere.

January 12, 2010 1:20 pm

Such an independent commision to be formed with holy inquisition’s friars of the green religion church, will condemn him to repeat aloud a thousand times
“I will never let infidels know about the sacred private communications held among our brother initiates”

January 12, 2010 1:24 pm

Michael Mann is not Joe Paterno. Penn State can afford to lose Mann.

January 12, 2010 1:25 pm

King of Cool (12:55:25) :
What was the next level? Armageddon?

January 12, 2010 1:25 pm

Good news, let’s hope they choose statisticians rather than IPCC thugs.

January 12, 2010 1:25 pm

the Commonwealth Foun dation – respectable, influential, serious? Or oil industry shills? Can an American comment for me?

Richard A.
January 12, 2010 1:26 pm

Hopefully there’s enough pressure on PSU that they will see the long term value of ditching Mann if it is determined he messed around too much. I any event, if they do ditch him you can be guaranteed it will be framed as the result of a massive right wing conspiracy to punish angelic climate ‘scientists’ who are just trying to save the world from evil carbon polluters.

January 12, 2010 1:27 pm

Pennsylvania legislature getting involved in the investigation would generate headlines. I’m from Pennsylvania, and it is a conservative state. The state of Pennsylvania could be ground zero to get the criminal indictments going. If I still lived in PA I would be seeking indictments through Public Grand Juries, sidestepping the usurped controlled criminal process.
Citizens Grand Jury – Speech by Gerry Donaldson

January 12, 2010 1:29 pm

If the link below is correct, Mann is guilty, in the minimum, of extremely unethical behavior and a demonstrated lack of integrity. This should remove any doubt that “inverted data sets” were merely mistakes as opposed to intentional actions.

January 12, 2010 1:29 pm

They can either do an honest and transparent investigation and save the reputation of the university or try and protect the reputation of Mann and destroy the reputation of the university. Either way Manns actions are in the public domain – all they can do now is clean up the mess instead of pretending it didnt happen.

Henry chance
January 12, 2010 1:30 pm

The feed back in other programs from the impact of a Con-Mann is logical.
Send Mann to check out tree rings in Siberia. Fieldtrips would help him clear his mind.

Peter of Sydney
January 12, 2010 1:33 pm

Yes, the new catastrophic warnings in Australia are a disgrace. How often do these warnings have to occur before they become meaningless? By all means have such an alert but only when it’s real, not hypothetical as is the case for the AGW alarmist crap.

John Hooper
January 12, 2010 1:38 pm

Hmm, the “Commonwealth Foundation.” Let me guess: yet another right-wing thank tank?
I’ll repeat it again: no-one who matters takes any notice of right-wing think tanks.

Sioned L
January 12, 2010 1:48 pm

Why isn’t taking government grants for research and then falsifying data not a criminal act? Why isn’t using email, which requires phone lines, to propagate your fraud, and the mail, to send in the grant requests, not wire and postal fraud? I think a lot of people are pussy footing around with their terminology and being a little too PC. Accountants go to jail all the time for “cooking” the books.

Dan in California
January 12, 2010 1:53 pm

An excellent chronological explanation of the emails is being performed by Dr John Costella on this website:
Lots of references to M. Mann there. His copyright says basically: “Please distribute”

King of Cool
January 12, 2010 1:54 pm

“King of Cool (12:55:25) :
What was the next level? Armageddon?” – Ray.
Not sure Ray but I think:
Code Scarlet and Cataclysmic
Code Crimson and Apocalyptic
might have been options.

January 12, 2010 2:00 pm

There’s already the Albany university investigation of Wei-Chyung Wang, co-author with Jones, that looks like a whitewash. W-C W was suspected of fraud (inventions of Chinese records, used to dismiss UHI concerns IIRC) by Doug Keenan who demanded an inquiry… and was then left out of said inquiry. Altogether a sordid-looking story and not a ghost that UPenn would want to haunt them I think.

January 12, 2010 2:02 pm

Michael (13:27:55) :
(…) I’m from Pennsylvania, and it is a conservative state. (…)

I’ve always been here, and before we can claim that in national elections we first have to cancel out Philly and Harrisburg/York. Which currently looks to be a lot easier come November. Don’t get me started on party-switching Senator Arlen Specter, whose “greenhouse gas emissions” position would qualify him as one of Al Gore’s “useful idiots.”

Lazarus Long
January 12, 2010 2:05 pm

“Calvin Ball (12:58:11) :
Mann is like manna to PSU. Why would they want to disturb such a capable rainmaker in the meteorology dept?”
He CAN control the weather?

Lazarus Long
January 12, 2010 2:06 pm

“…no-one who matters takes any notice of right-wing think tanks.”
Yet here you are commenting on it.
Odd, that.

Joe Crawford
January 12, 2010 2:06 pm

Twaki (13:29:45):

“They can either do an honest and transparent investigation and save the reputation of the university or try and protect the reputation of Mann and destroy the reputation of the university. Either way Mann’s actions are in the public domain – all they can do now is clean up the mess instead of pretending it didn’t happen.”

I’m not sure you can count on an “honest and transparent” investigation, even from the state. As several have already stated, there is way too much money and reputation involved in a negative outcome. Both the university and the state must consider that if Mann is found guilty of misconduct, malfeasance or outright fraud, what their exposure is to being held liable by the government and other funding organizations for the research funds he may have misused. One might make the case that, because of a lack of proper supervision, the university was partially responsible for the misuse of funds and must repay those funds to the government or other funding organization. That could get very expensive, very quick.

Dr Mo
January 12, 2010 2:09 pm

Hear! Hear! Let’s not forget the whitewash that happened at Albany Uni with the Wang & Jones paper on UHI effects when the university conducted its own “investigations”!

P Walker
January 12, 2010 2:13 pm

John Hooper (13:38;07) – So who does matter ? Please enlighten us .

Harold Blue Tooth
January 12, 2010 2:16 pm

kadaka (13:24:51) :
Michael Mann is not Joe Paterno. Penn State can afford to lose Mann.
Richard A. (13:26:30) :
Hopefully there’s enough pressure on PSU that they will see the long term value of ditching Mann
If Penn State does cut Michael Mann loose that would mean they see guilt in him. Would they be responsible to return all monies brought to the University by his name? If so they may not want to find guilt in him.

Tim Clark
January 12, 2010 2:16 pm

HotRod (13:25:27) :
the Commonwealth Foun dation – respectable, influential, serious? Or oil industry shills? Can an American comment for me?

The Commonwealth Foundation is an independent, non-profit research and educational institute that develops and advances public policies based on the nation’s founding principles of limited government, economic freedom, and personal responsibility.
The Commonwealth Foundation’s research and educational efforts are firmly established on several core values that form the basis of a “civil society.” The activities of the Foundation are therefore committed to:
Respecting and protecting the lives and property of others.
Recognizing the inseparability of personal and economic freedom.
Upholding personal responsibility and accountability for one’s actions.
Challenging the general perception that government intervention is the most appropriate and most efficient means of solving societal problems.
Demonstrating the power of private institutions—both for-profit and non-profit—to create a good and civil society.
Promoting the use of economic reasoning to understand a world of scarcity, trade-offs, and the unseen consequences of governmental solutions to societal problems.
If only the U.S. government adhered to these policies.

January 12, 2010 2:18 pm

Re: John Hooper (Jan 12 13:38),

“I’ll repeat it again: no-one who matters takes any notice of right-wing think tanks.”

Repeat it all you want- nobody who matters cares what you think.

Walter M. Clark
January 12, 2010 2:18 pm

“Lucy Skywalker (14:00:08)
It’s Pennsylvania State University, Penn State, not the University of Pennsylvania. Two different schools. We need to be careful here. Many states have two universities, similarly named. I live in Washington. We have Washington State University, in Pullman in the southeastern part of the state, and the University of Washington, in the western part, home of Eric Steig of RC and a few Climategate emails.

January 12, 2010 2:18 pm

Lucy Skywalker (14:00:08) :
Just a slight nit to pick UPenn is the University of Pennsylvania which is a completely different school then PSU (Pennsylvania State University). Also as someone else pointed out PSU is in a different boat finance wise compared to UEA and the Albany University. One PSU is a state funded institution and it is a far larger institution then the other two and JoePa and the PSU football team probably brought in more money to PSU this year alone then the entire grants Mann has brought in since 2005. Take a look at how much they probably made just from this years Capital One Bowl:

As of 2006[update] it has the largest payout of all the non-BCS bowls at $4.25M per team.
Keep in mind that this bowl game is not a BCS Big money Bowl Game like they had last year in the Rose Bowl.

Team Payout
The conferences participating in the Rose Bowl Game presented by Citi will receive $18 million.
As shown in their last two bowl games alone the football team brought in over $23 million. I doubt very much that Mann can equal the football teams revenue.
Where it would hurt PSU is in prestige not finances.

January 12, 2010 2:19 pm

kadaka (14:02:38) :
Michael (13:27:55) : Wrote
“(…) I’m from Pennsylvania, and it is a conservative state. (…)
I’ve always been here, and before we can claim that in national elections we first have to cancel out Philly and Harrisburg/York. Which currently looks to be a lot easier come November. Don’t get me started on party-switching Senator Arlen Specter, whose “greenhouse gas emissions” position would qualify him as one of Al Gore’s “useful idiots.””
Spector and Philly government has always been a thorn in my side. PA does have the Amish though.

Harold Blue Tooth
January 12, 2010 2:19 pm

I’m not sure this request will mean anything to the Pennsylvania government.

January 12, 2010 2:31 pm

HotRod (13:25:27) :
the Commonwealth Foun dation – respectable, influential, serious? Or oil industry shills? Can an American comment for me?
Does it matter if they are oil industry shills? Seems even Rajendra Kumar Pachauri seems to fall into that category.

January 12, 2010 2:33 pm

@ Harold Blue Tooth (14:19:55) : I’m not sure this request will mean anything to the Pennsylvania government.
Don’t be so sure of that. The PA Senate is Republican. So is our attorney general. Penn State has already been told by the Senate Education Committee and at least one senator that if they try to whitewash this, the SEC will do its own investigation.

January 12, 2010 2:35 pm

@ boballab (14:18:40) :
Lucy Skywalker (14:00:08) :
Just a slight nit to pick UPenn is the University of Pennsylvania which is a completely different school then PSU (Pennsylvania State University).
Penn is Ivy League. Penn State is a state-funded school.

January 12, 2010 2:40 pm

Very interesting. PSU investigating Michael Mann is not any different than East Anglia University investigating CRU or the UN investigating IPCC. The foxes are in charge of guarding the chicken coop.
The Commonwealth Foundation is to be commended but who’s going to vet for any investigative team formed by the State General assembly to insure that they are indeed independent? Jeffrey Piccola is not to be trusted either, in my opinion. He’s probably in bed with PSU.

January 12, 2010 2:50 pm

Harold Blue Tooth (14:16:08) :
If Penn State does cut Michael Mann loose that would mean they see guilt in him. Would they be responsible to return all monies brought to the University by his name? If so they may not want to find guilt in him.

If the money goes to the department then it stays with the department. If it was specified as specifically for his own research then it stays tied to him, until revoked for fraud, willful misrepresentation, or whatever reason gets cited. At least, that’s how I presume it works.
Harold Blue Tooth (14:19:55) :
I’m not sure this request will mean anything to the Pennsylvania government.

We Pennsylvania citizens have been wondering if any requests to our state government mean anything, unless coming from a politically-powerful and/or campaign-donating group or individual.
However, do not worry about Penn State losing significant amounts of funding. Our Governor Rendell, a non-convicted former Philadelphia mayor, has now gotten table games added for the casino businesses to increase the taxes and fees the state takes in, after he successfully brought slot machine gambling and Atlantic City-style casinos to our fair state. So in no time Harrisburg will have truckloads of cash to drop on our state educational institutions, like Penn State. The glorious days of prosperity are heading our way soon!

Richard Saumarez
January 12, 2010 3:40 pm

I would think that a few senior academics from other universities could do the job. After all Wegmen and his team saw through Mann. Just get another team and they will skewer him if there has been fraud.

January 12, 2010 3:41 pm

John Hooper (13:38:07) :
Hmm, the “Commonwealth Foundation.” Let me guess: yet another right-wing thank tank?
I’ll repeat it again: no-one who matters takes any notice of right-wing think tanks.

Polly want a cracker?

Steve J
January 12, 2010 4:16 pm

“@ Calvin Ball (12:58:11) :
Mann is like manna to PSU. Why would they want to disturb such a capable rainmaker in the meteorology dept?”
“Are you SERIOUS? Are you SERIOUS?” – Nancy Pelosi
Calvin, you need to study a bit… Mann – should have his phD pulled, and be locked up – he has been a fraud for 10+ years.
If they can not make rain ethically – the do not deserve the rain.

Steve J
January 12, 2010 4:19 pm

Is Mann being protected?

January 12, 2010 4:23 pm

From the late, great John Daly:

At the time he published his ‘Hockey Stick’ paper, Michael Mann held an adjunct faculty position at the University of Massachusetts, in the Department of Geosciences. He received his PhD in 1998, and a year later was promoted to Assistant Professor at the University of Virginia, in the Department of Environmental Sciences, at the age of 34.
He is now the Lead Author of the ‘Observed Climate Variability and Change’ chapter of the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR-2000), and a contributing author on several other chapters of that report. The Technical Summary of the report, echoing Mann’s paper, said: “The 1990s are likely to have been the warmest decade of the millennium, and 1998 is likely to have been the warmest year.”
Mann is also now on the editorial board of the ‘Journal of Climate’ and was a guest editor for a special issue of ‘Climatic Change’. He is also a ‘referee’ for the journals Nature, Science, Climatic Change, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Climate, JGR-Oceans, JGR-Atmospheres, Paleo oceanography, Eos, International Journal of Climatology, and NSF, NOAA, and DOE grant programs. (In the ‘peer review’ system of science, the role of anonymous referee confers the power to reject papers that are deemed, in the opinion of the referee, not to meet scientific standards).
He was appointed as a ‘Scientific Adviser’ to the U.S. Government (White House OSTP) on climate change issues.
Mann lists his ‘popular media exposure’ as including – “CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, CNN headline news, BBC, NPR, PBS (NOVA/FRONTLINE), WCBS, Time, Newsweek, Life, US News & World Report, Economist, Scientific American, Science News, Science, Rolling Stone, Popular Science, USA Today, New York Times, New York Times (Science Times), Washington Post, Boston Globe, London Times, Irish Times, AP, UPI, Reuters, and numerous other television/print media”.
Mann’s career highlights a serious problem with the modern climate sciences, namely the ‘star’ system where high-profile scientists are promoted swiftly to influential positions in the industry. Such a star system reduces science to the level of Hollywood. [source]

No wonder the CRU clique peractically shouted for joy when they heard that John Daly had passed away.

January 12, 2010 4:24 pm

John Hooper (13:38:07) : :”
Hmm, the “Commonwealth Foundation.” Let me guess: yet another right-wing thank tank? I’ll repeat it again: no-one who matters takes any notice of right-wing think tanks.”
And no one who has a brain takes any notice of people who make ad hominem attacks.

January 12, 2010 4:53 pm

I have already stated that I think this and the other internal university investigations into Jones and Briffa are all going to be white washes. This may hold out some hope for truthfulness, but I wouldn’t hold my breath. Truth seems to be a very rare commodity these days.

January 12, 2010 4:58 pm

Penn State is in Pennsylvania. The Governator of Pennsylvania is a fellar named Rendell (from Philadelphia). The senior Senator in Pennsylvania is Arlen Spector (from Philadelphia). Philadelphia wins. Pittsburgh and Pennsylvania lose. Mann declared innocent on all charges. Penn State (the state and the university) become bigger jokes. Mann despised by older and new colleagues; his contemporaries will think he walks on water till they realize its ice.

Arthur Penn
January 12, 2010 5:06 pm

Excellent! The tentacles of the entrenched AGW clan will attempt to whitewash any investigation into their activities.
Recall the brilliant last line from the film The Good Shepherd – “Why don’t we call it ‘The CIA’?? Nobody says ‘The’ god do they???”
Now, there is intractable momentum to smash the keepers of deceit. Down, down go the old guard protecting their puerile, decrepit fiefdom!
The Good Shepherd – a brilliant movie that explains much.

John Hooper
January 12, 2010 5:13 pm

All I’m saying is the Left is playing this as a political game and wiping the floor with the Right. I mean absolutely bucketing it all over us.
It doesn’t need to refer to GreenPeace or any of the many socialist hives for support, it has not only the UN, NASA, but practically every scientific body, scientific journal, university and government in the world on its side.
It even has Hollywood.
So if you think pulling out some small time overtly right-wing lobby group as some kind of trump card, you’re kidding yourself. It’s too easy to dismiss.
They just say “oh another one of these crackpot, gun toting, redneck, creationist, oil funded, anti-health care, oil funded, friends of Dick Cheney and Haliburton” and read no further.
It doesn’t matter whether they’re right or wrong, it’s about marketing. Just ask any Brit how they feel about Tony Blair after he jumped in bed with George W Bush.
Until we have scientific bodies that can match NASA on our side, we might as well be just a bunch of 911 truthers.

January 12, 2010 5:13 pm

I certainly hope that Mann will get his just deserts at the hands of his ‘peers’ but I fear he may have too many people in his pocket.
Just in case it was missed by newcomers to the site yesterday, I posted this fairly typical eg of how little the IPCC ‘climatologists’ are to be trusted. This incident was from 2005, but imo it’s fairly typical of how the Mann-made warming agenda became a ‘concensus’ – and needless to say this incident sank without a trace so far as the MSM was concerned:

January 12, 2010 5:21 pm

woodNfish (16:53:58) :
I have already stated that I think this and the other internal university investigations into Jones and Briffa are all going to be white washes.
If it were anything other than GW you can bet the UK public enquiry would be well under way already. Too many people with too much invested and too much money stolen already.
There would be riots if the public ever saw the real face of “climate science” and realised just how much these cowboys had cost them.

January 12, 2010 5:27 pm

Quoting John Hooper (13:38:07) :
“I’ll repeat it again: no-one who matters takes any notice of right-wing think tanks.”
Repeat all you want, but you left out the most important part: “no-one who matters TO ME, JOHN HOOPER takes any…yada yada yada.”
There are other people in the world, John.

Steve in SC
January 12, 2010 6:49 pm

What should happen is if they whitewash this they should lose their accreditation.
What will happen is something entirely different I fear.

Jeff Alberts
January 12, 2010 6:49 pm

No matter what the outcome of any investigation, however unbiased it purports to be, one side or the other will cry foul. I doubt they’re going to find an investigative body that can be unbiased.

January 12, 2010 6:58 pm

John Hooper (17:13:30)
Until we have scientific bodies that can match NASA on our side, we might as well be just a bunch of 911 truthers.
Go have a good cry, John, then maybe you’ll feel better.

January 12, 2010 7:02 pm

Smokey said: ” No wonder the CRU clique practically shouted for joy when they heard that John Daly had passed away.”
No kidding. Daly was Toto dragging the curtain away from the Wizard’s facade.
And Michael Mann is gonna be a great dissertation study for some psychologist somewhere who wants to study Narcissistic Personality Disorder, no doubt.
Norfolk, VA, USA

January 12, 2010 7:06 pm

“Pennsylvania State Senate Education Committee Chairman Jeffrey Piccola has already promised Penn State that if its investigation is a whitewash, he will do one that isn’t.”
I love it. An aggressive, yet civil, “threat”.
Give ’em hell, Jeffery.
Norfolk, VA, USA

January 12, 2010 7:16 pm

John Hooper (13:38:07) :
I’ll repeat it again: no-one who matters takes any notice of right-wing think tanks.

The epitome of arrogance..

January 12, 2010 7:56 pm

Thanks to The Commonwealth Foundation for speaking out on the need for an independent investigation of Michael Mann’s role in the global climate scandal.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

Tom G(ologist)
January 12, 2010 8:40 pm

I have written to sen Piccola as a Pennsylvanian citizen and as the current president of the state’s geologist licensing board to demand that funding to theEarth science department be suspended until the university auapwnds mann while the investigation proceeds. I received a very details reply which left me with the impression that he will follow through with his promise.
This one is great because PSU is a state university. The last whack job science professor we had was/is Micheal Behe of Lehigh U whose own department censured him but we could do nothing because Lehigh is private. With Mann we can continue screaming until someone does something.

January 12, 2010 8:45 pm

the Commonwealth Foun dation – respectable, influential, serious? Or oil industry shills? Can an American comment for me?
Michael Mann – respectable, influential, serious? Or a Carbon Trader shill?

chili palmer
January 12, 2010 9:22 pm

All the money in the world is on the side of fake AGW including the oil companies. Trying to discredit a source by saying, oh that’s just from an oil company’ shows one’s ignorance. Even the climategate emails in April 2002 said the oil companies are the ones who forced the UN to take Pachauri as head of the climate scam. They are all in on it, Pachauri has numerous connections to oil interests, it’s no secret. Perhaps they like other businesses felt it was useless to fight Goldman Sachs, Soros, and organized crime (which is already documented to be making the most out of carbon trading). There are 5 climate change lobbyists per congressman in Washington. Yes, part of the left’s method is to overwhelm the public with information and thereby demoralize those on the right. Nevertheless, we are talking now only because one human being did a brave thing a month or 2 ago. It was also just one person who brought down the mighty Dan Rather –with a typewriter spool. Remember Eason Jordan, former chief of CNN? He is gone too because one blogger heard something vile and untrue he said in a foreign country.

January 12, 2010 9:55 pm

It should always be remembered that the pejorative term “right wing” refers to the largest fraction of Americans. The number of Americans self-describing themselves as conservatives is double the number who describe themselves as liberals.
If President John F. Kennedy were president today, he would be ruthlessly attacked by the liberal contingent as an extreme right wing nut. And Kennedy was a 100% Democrat.
There is a reason for the fact that the Left has attained control far in excess of its numbers. Following the Korean war, the Soviet Union realized that communism could not be imposed on the world by military force. The Korean conflict made it clear that Italy, across the Adriatic sea from communist Albania and next on the Soviets’ targeted list, could not be forcibly taken as planned by Stalin.
Intense strategy sessions followed the Korean checkmate, and gradually a long term plan was formulated to insinuate, one by one, individuals into key positions in all Western democracies. The Venona papers, released following the fall of the Berlin Wall, confirmed the Soviet plan. “Two steps forward, one step back” was the acknowledged path, which we see today in the endless COP climate summits. Copenhagen was one step back – but not the end of the struggle. Mexico City is next on the never ending COP agenda.
During the Viet Nam war, college students majoring in Education were given a deferrment from the draft. As a result, large numbers of students listed ”Education” as their major.
Many went straight into teaching — which maintained their draft-deferred status, unlike most other professions. [For instance, police officers were also exempt. But that’s a dangerous profession, too.]
Those draft-dodging students were well aware that other American boys had to step up and fight for our country in their place. But their guilt was not enough to convince them to serve their country. As a result, colleges had a large influx of draft-dodgers majoring in Education.
Those people were forced to rationalize their guilt and cowardice, knowing that they had put their tails between their legs and hid out, rather than serve our country like most other American boys did.
So for 35+ years now, they’ve taught impressionable students that the draft-dodgers were the real heroes, and the soldiers who served were the villains [I know, because I was one of the soldiers in Viet Nam. When I returned, it certainly wasn’t as someone admired by my young peers, who had graduated from college by then. So I kept my mouth shut].
Today’s students are simply victims of this continuous false indoctrination by those same guilt-ridden draft dodgers who, rather than serving our country in its time of need, cut and ran. Sorry if this offends the sensibilities of 60 year old college professors with tenure, but I saw this happen with my own eyes.
Now, those same professors are teaching our young kids the green eco-creed, which is the exact same ideology our country and the West fought against. The only difference is that now they’re called “Greens,” instead of “Reds.”
As in the sixties, conservative and middle of the road citizens are viciously attacked by the Left as “right wing extremists.” The news media [except for the internet] is almost completely controlled by the same kind of people who dodged the draft in the 1960’s. They deliberately censor all opposing opinion, completely rejecting the 1st Amendment. Propaganda is their weapon of choice, used by the same people who have greatly benefitted from the free market: they already have theirs, and they do not care if those who follow must work for the collective, and endure a completely avoidable lower living standard.
So now, the green reds have achieved almost complete media control. Their feckless professors are in almost every school and university, scheming for every advantage. They are at the apex of their power. The only question remaining is: will freedom loving citizens rise up to derail the push to make the world a collective, run by an opaque, unaccountable EU and UN? Or will spoiled citizens meekly allow the leash to be put around their necks at this point in history?
I’m old enough to look upon the situation dispassionately, expecting democracies to throw off the yoke of collectivism – but unsurprised if they bow their heads to their feckless, cowardly proto-superiors. All it takes is a little courage to win the battle.

January 12, 2010 11:30 pm

There is no chance-none at all, that Mann will be implicated in any wrong doing.Mann is like Hansen and Gore to the IPCC and Obama.The damage would be intolerable.MBH98 was what started this whole thing and the UN has hitched its wagon to this horse.If Mann has his credibility even questioned the whole house of cards will fall and the powers that be know it full well.Sorry fellas but its a dead duck.

Lindsay H
January 12, 2010 11:41 pm

Universities rely on external funding to expand thier programmes, Having a “star” Prof. who brings in the dollars is important to an institution. But when the “star ” is shown to have webbed feet, and has created a great deal of resentment among his peers, eventually the funders start looking for more attractive alternatives.
None of he funders wants to admit they have been conned, so expect to see a sudden slide sideways where funders will start to support new projects with a different set of objectives subtly designed to exclude the likes of Mann and has fellow travellers.
Its already started !!

January 13, 2010 12:41 am

There was a thoughtful mail on the CA thread re why no members of the community had yet spoken out, from someone with personal knowledge of wrong-doing, i recall in pharma industry. It was hushed up, white-washed, whatever, but the person was disappeared, reputation in the industry gone.
Mann has other disadvantages, esp his personal style. Who would want to co-author with him after this I wonder?
Steve et al, can someone comment on whether this is the route it will take, that there is a silent movement not to co-author with the inner team after this?

chili palmer
January 13, 2010 1:36 am

All the discussion is boiled down nicely by above commenter: this issue is about the president of the United States. (Mike Mann=Obama, Obama goes way back to the creation of the Chicago Climate Exchange, so he’s not about to cave). Another commenter was kind enough to post John Daly’s rundown on Mann’s media list-he’s a special adviser to the White House. This movement exists because of 20 years of weak and greedy politicians. The next logical step is to have the 2007 Supreme Court case reversed, the 5-4 ruling that CO2 was a pollutant. Objective information was not available to the court at that time. For reasons Mike Mann and the many journals he ‘referees’ would be familiar with. This is do-able.

January 13, 2010 2:51 am

Lindsay H (23:41:28) :
(…) But when the “star ” is shown to have webbed feet…

And what is wrong with webbed feet? Come on, you know how evolution works. After the glaciers have all melted and whatever “dry land” remains is continually lashed by violent storms, webbed feet will be a significant advantage towards survival. Why, those with webbed feet may be the only remaining branch of humanity left!
Meanwhile, as evolution seems to “predict” future crises with what can appear to be random mutations that accumulate into definitive differences, we await the appearance of supplementary gills as “proof” of future catastrophic warming. By the way, it was an awful sham how they (mis)represented evolution as working after-the-fact in that alarmist speculative documentary with Kevin Costner.

alan neil ditchfield
January 13, 2010 2:55 am

My environmental awareness was aroused in mid 1971, when I was invited to a meeting of the Club of Rome in Rio de Janeiro. It first struck me as a constructive publicity move of FIAT, the sponsor. At intervals of a few months the Club of Rome invited noted scientists and intellectuals to meetings at tourist attractions like Rio de Janeiro, with all expenses paid. They were asked to meditate about the predicament of mankind and to listen to progress reports of a team of young MIT engineers who were using a computer model to project the impact on the planet of expanding economic activity. The results of the study were stated in the 1972 book, Limits to Growth, of which some 12 million copies were printed. The launching of the book was a masterpiece by editorial standards and its contents still remain central to such thought, including that of John Holdren, science adviser of Obama.
One of the new tools used in the study was the feed-back algorithm developed by Prof. Jay Forrester, of MIT, to portray the unfolding of complex systems over long timelines. All relevant factors are displayed in elaborate flowcharts and their interplay shown in a succession of stages like snapshots, in which the end of one stage is the beginning of the next. The idea is much like that of cinema, in which the rapid display of successive photos creates the optical illusion of movement. Forrester used his feedback innovation to the study of location problems of industry (Industrial Dynamics) and to explain the decay of metropolitan cities in America (Urban Dynamics). The new effort applied Forrester’s technique to demonstrate the Club of Rome proposition that a finite planet cannot support growth of population and economic activity at the pace seen for two decades after World War II. The conclusion was ready; it needed rationalization with a computer model to give a scientific look to what was the belief of the sponsors, FIAT chairman Aurelio Peccei and the renowned scientist Alexander King.
Limits to Growth had a large number of gloomy forecasts, speculative thought as such, but not science, and time rejected their validity. The earliest of the kind, the Malthus Essay on the Principle of Population published in 1798, foretold a grim 19th century. The population of Britain, stable at 5 million until the middle of the 18th century, had grown to 8 million and was expanding at a geometrical rate, while the supply of food expanded at a lower arithmetical rate. As Malthus saw it, population was bound to collapse to a sustainable level through famine, disease and war. But during the 19th century the population of Britain became four times larger and the economy sixteen times greater, an expansion supported by the Industrial Revolution. Most Britons entered the 20th century well fed, clothed and healthy, housed in cities with good sanitation. Gone were the days of the “dark satanic mills” of the early 19th century. The technology that had expanded industrial output also provided the means to end squalor.
Malthusian thought was discredited but remained dormant until the 1968, when resurrected by Paul Erlich with his equally grim Population Bomb. This time world population was bound to collapse on a planet that was running out of arable land to feed it; he reckoned that over the next two decades hundreds of millions would die of famine. The reasoning was crude and was superseded by the more sophisticated approach of the Club of Rome that put in motion the PAT idea, a formula that summarizes the impact of human activity on the environment I = P×A×T. In words: Human Impact (I) on the environment equals the product of population (P), affluence (A): consumption per capita; and technology (T): environmental impact per unit of consumption. Population was still at the root of coming doomsday, and its impact on the planet is multiplied by growing demand for non-renewable resources (fuel and minerals) to sustain better living standards. Food scarcity was only one factor among many driving mankind to destruction.
I made three objections to the assumptions underpinning the Club of Rome study.
• Population forecasts are uncertain. What had come about in mid 20th century was the dramatic fall of mortality while fertility remained the same. I held this to be exceptional. Nothing warranted the assumption that this imbalance would persist indefinitely as projected in the study. Indeed, UN world population forecasts now show stability to be reached in the 21st century.
• Given the vast land area of the planet the idea of an excessive population is farfetched. Overcrowding is a local problem. It is evil in Calcutta and has been successfully coped with in many metropolitan cites.
• The concept of non-renewable resources was untenable. Most of the crust of the earth remains unknown. The Club of Rome assumption was that mineral reserves stated in sources like the Minerals Yearbook of the U.S, Bureau of Mines were all that remained and, given the naïve arithmetic, most would be depleted by the end of the 20th century.
Dennis Meadows, the project team leader, conceded that simplifications were made to make the World Model fit into the humble IBM 1130 computer, but these did not invalidate the axiomatic idea that a finite planet cannot support infinite growth. I challenged the axiom too. If Meadows reasoned at limits, I had equal right. I claim that all human consumption does not subtract one ounce from the mass of a planet subject to the Law of Conservation of Mass. Theoretically, everything can be recycled. The limitation is one of energy, and fusion energy reactors will make it available in practically unlimited quantities. It may be argued that we cannot count on technology not yet developed, but we must not discount it either. That is the flaw of Malthusian thought: the assumption that technological development will cease and stagnate forever at current levels.
What amazed me was the sight of the elderly sages of the Club of Rome accepting the computer printouts and graphs as sayings of a pagan oracle. To my mind they just illustrated the truth of the adage: [garbage in] = [garage out]. I know the content of the Forrester programs in the intimacy of FORTRAN statements, so I was not awed by the mathematics or by the computer of the MIT team. As an engineer, I had a professional interest in the Forrester programs because I was then engaged in location studies for large industries.
Eight weeks after the Rio de Janeiro Club of Rome meeting I traveled to New York on a business mission, after an absence of five years, and felt that I had landed on a different planet. On the ride from airport to Manhattan I was surprised by the sight of leafless trees in full summer. The cab driver explained that a pest was killing the trees and a court order had banned the use of pesticides; New Yorkers were exchanging their trees for a collection of insects. I found fleas in the subway, cockroaches in my hotel room and flies galore everywhere. I learned that the new Environmental Protection Agency, in one of its first acts, had banned the use of DDT with no scientific evidence to back the claim that it was harmful to human health. Over the previous decade the Silent Spring book of Rachel Carson had demonized it to the American public until it became politically correct to curse all chemical products used by modern farming. The anti-scientific ban was to have consequences beyond the discomfort I was experiencing. It stopped a world wide drive to eradicate malaria, as was done with polio and smallpox. Over four decades 40 to 50 million preventable deaths can be laid at the door of the promoters of this environmental cause. One of them was Alexander King, leader of the scientific team at the time of World War II that gave the world large scale availability of DDT, and the hope of eradicating insect-transmitted diseases. In his memoirs King let slip a senile remark: “my chief quarrel with DDT in hindsight is that it greatly added to the population problem.”
I realized the strength of the grip of this new misanthropic attitude when I strolled down Lexington Avenue and stopped at a grocery that displayed boxes of worm-infested peaches on the sidewalk – sold at premium price! I entered for a word with the grocer. He claimed that he sold what the customers wanted: the presence of worms was taken as proof of legitimate “natural” fruit. To me it proved that fruit flies had sat on the peaches. I laughed. Someone with the wits to sell rotten peaches at high prices has the talent to sell anything at any price. I advised him to sell the grocery and move a few blocks west, to Madison Avenue, the hub of the advertising business, where he would earn a fortune as a gifted liar.
The mindset of America, and indeed of the Western world, was being shaken by a tectonic shift. For two centuries the Industrial Revolution had bestowed bounty on much of the world and was fast banishing the specter of dire want everywhere. Industrialization was fostered everywhere, and a national steel mill and national airline were emblematic of newly independent countries. Progress, once a universal aspiration, was now being challenged by contrarians of a new breed, not by the reactionaries of some failed Ancien Regime, of which the world still has plenty. The picturesque hippies of San Francisco who rejected progress and aspired to a life of idleness and poverty were only an echo of a wider movement that was engulfing the academic sphere and especially social studies. It was postmodern doctrine with its rejection of science, progress and of rational thought itself.
Prof. Alan Sokal, a physicist of New York University saw through it and concluded that there ain’t no thing called a social science. Anything goes, provided it is well written, scholarly-looking, in tune with the prejudices of the editor, and proved his point with publication of his paper, titled “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity”. The paper would have been perceived as a hoax by an engineering student, but was published as serious in Social Text. In one statement the number PI had a value of 3.141592… because it was arbitrated by the current social context; future generations in a different context would give it another value, because all is relative. Sokal didn’t invent such postmodernist nonsense; it is supported by more than 100 references to what had been published about hard science by social “scientists”. Engineers and scientists stopped being pinup boys and were vilified as robots mindlessly herding mankind to the cliff edge. It was claimed that the higher knowledge of postmodernist government was needed to avert disaster.
During the decades dominated by Thatcher and Reagan a limit was put to the politics of envy that exploited the cynical saying that “A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul”. This was laid to rest by market economy reforms that returned power to Victorian values that rewarded hard work, enterprise and ingenuity instead of political craftiness. Neither Blair nor Clinton dared tamper with reforms that worked well. The market economy was accepted all over the world because it was more efficient in meeting the needs of mankind than any alternative.
In the shadow of that time Environmentalism became a big business with a myriad of non-governmental organizations that evolved into a huge extortion racket, protected by law and supported by ample funds and publicity. With the turn of the political tide the racket is out for its own grab for power.
• Its objective is to place energy production under control of governments, and ultimately of an international body. Energy consumption would be rationed. Taxing the air you breathe will no longer be a figure of speech; it will be world wide policy to submit the acts of every human being to central control.
• Its technique is the one of the Club of Rome: rationalization with computer models to give a scientific look to what is an unproved and non provable belief: that anthropogenic global warming would end civilization (no longer attributed to overcrowding and exhausted resources). One finds the UN Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change In the old role of the Club of Rome, with vastly expanded propaganda resources.
• Its instrument is the postmodern Precautionary Principle: where there is a deadlock in understanding, bureaucratic whim trumps science.
The instrument carries the threat of being lethal to democratic institutions. Its first notable use was ushered in by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under the tenure of Carol Browner, during the Clinton years, to implement her anti-tobacco project with the justification that second hand smoke caused cancer in non-smokers. Numerous medical studies commissioned by the Agency failed to deliver the justification. The studies had been done under the stern rules of Food and Drug Administration with double-blind reviews. Big Tobacco hired lawyers to state their case and these resorted to expert testimony of scientists – exactly what the other side did. This is litigation, not science, with the pot calling the kettle black. Carol Browner circumvented the deadlock with a legal dodge of the Precautionary Principle: “if an action or policy has suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action.” This opened the gates to endless mischief. On December 7th 2009, the day that lives in infamy, Obama decreed that carbon dioxide a pollutant dangerous to health, when it is the nutrient that sustains the food chain of all that lives on the planet. EPA rulings, not acts of Congress, are now the law of the land. America was turned into a Bobama Republic ruled by decree. Carol Browner is now energy adviser to Obama, not for her knowledge of the field but for her expertise in chicanery. Her achievement in the field was banning the drilling for oil on the continental shelf of Florida.
At the Copenhagen Climate Conference Hugo Chavez blamed global warming on capitalism and got a standing ovation from delegates of 191 sovereign states. Evo Morales blames Americans for the summer floods of Bolivia. They have the support of the Castro brothers, Amhadinejad, Kim Jong-il and of Osama Bin Laden. With friends like these, does Obama really need enemies?
In November 2009, three thousand documents with FORTRAN source codes and one thousand private e-mails were placed in the public domain, revealing peer-reviewed climate science as a joke on which rests the proposed expenditure of trillions of dollars. Climategate may come to rank with the climacteric events of World War II, as an event that changed the course of world history.

January 13, 2010 3:30 am

“the investigation constitutes a conflict of interest for the university. ”
Exactly what I have been saying about the U.E.A and Jones!!!!

January 13, 2010 5:39 am

Smokey (21:55:19) :
“It should always be remembered that the pejorative term “right wing” refers to the largest fraction of Americans….(etc.)”
And here I thought I was all alone on this planet. You bring tears to my eyes. I wonder if there are any more of our species. When we move on to the great beyond look me up and I’ll buy you a heavenly beer.

January 13, 2010 7:12 am

It should be an American project and not a European one:
A website endorsing The Commonwealth Foundation’s letter by collecting signatures. It would even have been better the The Commonwealth Foundation letter would have been shorter and without any prejudices, very neutral. This letter with thousands of signatures asking for a independent and public “jury” could gain some more public support. But there is also the risk of failure – of course.

Elmer Gantry
January 13, 2010 7:26 am

“Pennsylvania State Senate Education Committee Chairman Jeffrey Piccola has already promised Penn State that if its investigation is a whitewash, he will do one that isn’t.”
“promised”…..really? Are skeptics still this naive?
The likelihood of “any” investigation concluding anything substantive is nil. With millions of dollars at stake, and the political power of the University, they can control any state Legislative commission. “Hand-picked” lackys will simply sustain the current AGW response with: Nothing to see here…move along.
Like painting over rust.

January 13, 2010 8:14 am
“More surprising, the initial probe involves a committee of just three, all of whom are Penn State employees with a clear interest in preserving the reputation of a university ranked ninth in the nation in receiving government research and development grants. It may raise some eyebrows to know that no outsiders will monitor the proceedings.” . . . “So, the team consists of Foley, plus William Brune, Mann’s boss, who has headed Penn State’s meteorology department for about a decade, and Candice Yekel, director of the Office of Research Protections, who reports to Foley.”
The contact information for each committee member is below:
William Brune
Distinguished Professor and Head of Meteorology
505 Walker Building
University Park
(814) 865-3286
(814) 865-3663 Fax
Henry C. Foley
Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School
304 Old Main
University Park, PA 16802
(814) 863-9580
Candice A. Yekel
Director, Office for Research Protections
205 The 330 Building
University Park, PA 16802
phone 814-865-1775
fax 814-863-8699

John Hooper
January 13, 2010 9:21 am

” Gilbert (19:16:59) :
John Hooper (13:38:07) :
I’ll repeat it again: no-one who matters takes any notice of right-wing think tanks.
The epitome of arrogance..”
Jeezuz, it’s no wonder we get called “denialists.”
We don’t have to win over the far-right. We have to win over the moderate left and right. And we won’t do that by recruiting the far-right any more than you’re won over by Chavez, Chomsky, Moore or the International Socialists.
We are on a licking to nothing in this campaign, and the last thing we need is for the one site that isn’t tarnished by connections to dodgy “greed is great” lobby groups to recruit the jeering masses of GOP fanboys, who’ll instantly alienate us from the moderate left we need to win over.
If you think ClimateGate is a coup, perhaps you need to look at the likes of Exxon Secrets, anything by Monbiot, Wikipedia, etc etc etc. Reams and reams of dirt on every pundit we put forward. Oh no, you don’t like it, it’s all so Left-wing. Well sneer you may. Go into denial, as they say. It won’t win us this campaign by sticking our collective heads in the sand. No one is listening.
Heck we don’t even have the Skeptics on our side:
So if we want to challenge Al Gore, every Government in the world, every national scientific body in the World and the appearance of a “scientific consensus”, we have to push them to the far left and place ourselves as the moderate center.
Otherwise we just look like loonies. And last time I looked that’s what we’re being called in all but the most tabloid press.
The fact is most journalists lean left, and they always will. You might not like it, but this is what we have to work with it. We must win them over, not alienate them. And the surest way to lose credibility is to rely on right-wing think tanks for support.
As far as they’re concerned right-wing think tanks represent mankind at its most selfish and greedy. Irrespective of how you see it. Google me wrong.

Roger Knights
January 13, 2010 9:37 am

businesses felt it was useless to fight Goldman Sachs, Soros, and organized crime

“Organized CLIME”!

January 13, 2010 10:46 am

John Hooper (09:21:56) :
This time you make more sense, to me at least (before this one, I agreed with replies to you). But IMO this is a battle in the soul – and will be won in that arena first. Your soul. My soul. Everything else then follows like Spring follows Winter.
I’ve deliberately used the word “soul” though this is a matter of Science and fraud and being governed by too many crooks who are all in each others’ pockets. But you see how Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre have done work that has gained momentum, gained traction. How? They are communicators who value their intuitive sense of integrity enough to follow it wherever it leads- and because people care about integrity, deep down. But it takes time. And it takes a lot of schooling in courtesy all round. Why don’t you go and help Jeffrey Piccola to make his promise work? How about it? The two of you, might start to give weight…

Daniel M
January 13, 2010 11:17 am

Scott Covert (13:13:17) :
In the correlation does not equal causation Pakistan blames the northern hemisphere cooling on the US. Aparently we pierced a hole in the atmosphere.
Sounds like a win-win situation here. If true, then we have a sure-fire and relatively inexpensive way to cool the Earth … no need for drastic carbon policing. If false, then it only illustrates the void of scientific thought within the lunatic fringe.

January 13, 2010 12:04 pm

Hi Anthony,
It’s encouraging to read this news. My associate, Kent Clizne and me recently drew media and Internet attention to Michael Mann’s role in the Climategate scandal with our audacious offer to Mann’s co-workers of a multi-million dollar whistleblower package to include the assistance of America’s leading attorney in the field and our commitment to maintain their absolute anonymity and any other support we can offer.
But a new and perhaps more important initiative we are running desperately requires expert help from volunteers to help me in our investigation of the facts behind the dropping of 806 ‘cold’ ground weather stations in one year from the GHCN data set.
I’m currently in correspondence with Britain’s Climate Minister, Joan Ruddock and I’m pressing her to come clean about the widely unreported dropping of these 806 ‘cold’ weather stations as first reported by ChiefIO
So far, with the help of readers on our site, we’ve painstakingly gone through part of that long list checking into the details of the dropped stations – particularly their location – whether rural or urban and thus likely to be contaminated by the urban heat island (UHI) effect.
You may well have guessed that what we’re finding so far from the few stations we’ve analysed is a trend that its mostly rural stations that have been dropped e.g. the dropped Australian and New Zealand stations are mostly rural (e.g. Port Nelson, Ruttan Lake, Joutel). Our readers successfully determined that the station count for the U.S. (in the GHCN v2_mean file) dropped from 1177 to 136 in April 2006. We were able to confirm this by importing the data and by doing a simple count of all station ID’s beginning with “425″ for the year 2006. Replication is straightforward apparently ( I’m no stats man -my contribution is as volunteer writer and legal commentator). I’m told this is a trivial task for any application developer to write the code to import this data and then analyse it. The most significant observation we have noted is that most of the stations left in the U.S. are airports (for the years 2006 and going forward- that’s a clear UHI type contamination in itself).
What we desperately need is help from other volunteers to complete our task of checking all 806 dropped stations. I want to be able to press the case confidently against the UK Climate Minister as soon as practicable to shame and blame the guilty and to lobby hard for a re-think of the culture of closed-door science and research.
If there is anything anyone can offer I would be extremely grateful. For more info and to read a copy of my latest letter to the Minister please see:
All the best and keep up the great work!
John O’Sullivan

T. Luxe
January 13, 2010 3:28 pm

Make no mistake about this, the world believes that there is Global Warming ONLY because of the work which was done by Mann, Briffa, Jones and a few other researchers who have emphasized the use of tree ring temperature proxy data to eliminate the Medievel Warming Period. If these folks have conspired and coordinated their efforts to manipulate the four datasets used for the tree ring proxies this is a crime against humanity of epoch scale. These data sets have been used in the 4th IPCC report as the primary justification for the existance of man made global warming. Eliminate the tree ring data sets and the temperature at the end of the 20th century is smack in the middle of the data range of the past 1000 years. Translation…
NO ABNORMAL GLOBAL WARMING FROM EITHER MAN OR MOTHER NATURE OCCURED DURING THE 20TH CENTURY!!! Kyoto resulted from this chart and all of the “cap and trade” hysteria is the result of this chart. If the MWP and LIA return to the charts as shown on fig 11 on the following, (the 27 non tree ring temp. proxies in blue) than there is no AGW argument. If these charts have been purposefully manipulated as it now appears, these folks should go to jail for a crime against humanity!

January 13, 2010 4:18 pm

John Hooper:
Do you participate in any sport? If so, you must be a permanent member of the also-ran set.
In Australia we recently caused such an uproar over a proposed Emission Trading Scheme that the Government lost the vote in the Senate. The opposition leader lost his post because, as a former Goldman Sachs man, he supported the legislation. We melted their phones and faxes and jammed their email boxes. We, the people, were bluddy angry that they wanted to foist this huge redistributive tax (read electoral slush fund) on us.
Don’t whinge, fight. If you already think you’ve lost, then you certainly have.

January 13, 2010 4:41 pm

@HotRod (13:25:27) :
the Commonwealth Foun dation – respectable, influential, serious? Or oil industry shills? Can an American comment for me?
Well, I’m not American but I do have a copy of CRU’s acknowledgements of funders: energy industry shills (see B and S in particular)?
This list is not fully exhaustive, but we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders (in alphabetical order):
British Council, British Petroleum, Broom’s Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre, Central Electricity Generating Board, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), Commercial Union, Commission of European Communities (CEC, often referred to now as EU), Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC), Department of Energy, Department of the Environment (DETR, now DEFRA), Department of Health, Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Eastern Electricity, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), Environment Agency, Forestry Commission, Greenpeace International, International Institute of Environmental Development (IIED), Irish Electricity Supply Board, KFA Germany, Leverhulme Trust, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), National Power, National Rivers Authority, Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC), Norwich Union, Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, Overseas Development Administration (ODA), Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates, Royal Society, Scientific Consultants, Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC), Scottish and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research, Shell, Stockholm Environment Agency, Sultanate of Oman, Tate and Lyle, UK Met. Office, UK Nirex Ltd., United Nations Environment Plan (UNEP), United States Department of Energy, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Wolfson Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF). ”
The original page was removed when CRU shut down its webpages. It may have returned, haven’t checked.

January 13, 2010 5:06 pm

And as a rider to my previous post, It is interesting to note that the CRU funders’ list was not fully exhaustive. I’m sure many people would like to see the full list, all entirely above board I’m sure.

David Valentine
February 15, 2010 11:07 pm

You labelled the American Thinker link incorectly it’s American Spectator. Great Blog by the way I’m enjoying readng it

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights