Paul Chesser at the American Spectator tips me via email to a TV news report from WHTM-TV in Harrisburg, PA. WHTM is the TV station whose DMA covers State College.
Chesser writes:
Following up from yesterday, the ABC news station in Harrisburg did a fair-and-balanced story about the Commonwealth Foundation‘s call for an outside, independent investigation of Penn State’s Climategate scientist, Michael Mann.
Here’s the video news report:
Transcript here:
ABC27: Penn State at Center of Global Warming Debate
Wow … it’s got legs.
The truth will come out? Are they blind? The truth has already come out for all to see. Only the blind can’t see it. Mann should be trialled for fraud. The evidence is clear. Just needs to be taken to a court of law.
@ur momisugly mpaul (19:58:35) :
I should have known that. I went to college in Ky in the late 60s. Centre College of Ky.
46 states, eh? Whodathunkit? What about the Kingdom of Hawaii? ( Just kidding.)
I just went over to Wikipedia to view the Climategate page…I wish I hadn’t. The page is now called “Climatic Research Unit hacking incident”, presents as a ‘fact’ that the emails were hacked, and uses Mann’s defense of ‘trick’ and ‘hide the decline’ verbatim, despite Wikipedia’s rules about no primary sources.
These people are shameless.
James Chamberlain,
Ethics? Integrity? Reputation?
Sorry, If Penn State had any of those things Mann would have been axed after the Wegman investigation.
I don’t mind Mann’s smile. If the university looks at Mann’s emails at Penn State and finds more of this stuff on trying to delete emails to foil a Freedom of Information request how can they whitewash it? Wouldn’t they be afraid it could come out later in a congressional hearing or perhaps a future leak? Maybe the question is whether Penn State should have the right to examine Mann’s emails at their university.
My guess is that Mann was picked on quite a bit in grade school. That, coupled with premature baldness, led to an extreme psychosis.
I think this is a lesson for all of us to learn. We may not claim this for ourselves but we should. Belief trumps data. There are those among us skeptics whose hands are in this same cookie jar. The data isn’t there but we believe anyway.
Can we be as skeptical of our belief in own point of view as we are of AGW? If not, we are no better theorists than the ones being investigated. Do I believe it’s the Sun? The oceans? Land use? Planetary gravity? Atmospheric oscillations? Cozmos’ moon? How well would my theory hold up under such a white hot magnifying glass?
tfp (19:27:23) :
Commonwealth Foundation @ur momisugly org… see the board of directors:
http://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/about/page/board-of-directors
Mr. Matthew J. Brouillette (President & CEO) was the chap on the video.
PS> Where does one go to get one of the hockey sticks? Would Mike sign them if you walked up to him in the street?
With any investigation, if the possible results include damage to the hierachy (investigators, uni boards etc) a level of whitwash will occur, even if to delay the truth long enough to allow some future wriggle room for the hierachy.
If however any possible benefit is to be gained by the hierachy, then a whitewash is less likely. I think I made sense.
e.g. “All the evidence provided to us by the experts point to weapons of mass destruction” etc
We need to elaborate on the benefits of a true open investigation.
That’s the liberal smirk, they all do it. It is based on a false self-assement of their intelligence. If you find a large picture of the expression, cover the mouth and look at the eyes, then cover the eyes and look at the mouth. They don’t match, Dr. Paul Ekman has a book on that covers what that mismatch signals.
Indeed, odds do favor a whitewash. Penn State could find itself owing all those federal grant dollars back to the people of the USA. BIG incentive for a cover-up, doncha think?
Pamela Gray (20:46:33) :
“I think this is a lesson for all of us to learn. We may not claim this for ourselves but we should. Belief trumps data. There are those among us skeptics whose hands are in this same cookie jar. The data isn’t there but we believe anyway.
Can we be as skeptical of our belief in own point of view as we are of AGW? If not, we are no better theorists than the ones being investigated. Do I believe it’s the Sun? The oceans? Land use? Planetary gravity? Atmospheric oscillations? Cozmos’ moon? How well would my theory hold up under such a white hot magnifying glass?”
Great points.
Which is why, at the end of the day, no matter what the truth turns up, our highest responsibility is to the truth of the matter, whatever it may be.
Which is why one must always take the time to stand outside oneself and try to examine what you know and what you believe….and to be able to dispassionately distinguish between the two.
The SM at work really….your own personal, internal, SM.
It is hard to get past the natural human predilections in favor of cognitive dissonance and other maladies of our species, such as group-think and mass delusion.
But once you do, a whole new vista opens up. Maybe….just maybe….we are evolving.
The fact that the current orthodoxy which says Mann is the best there is….is proof that we are in a de-volved state and sites like this one (WUWT)that push forward…may offer something better.
Cheers.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Self-righteous belief in liberalism/conservatism (take your pick) is no better than self-righteous belief in AGW/NCV (Natural Climate Variability). To accuse the other side of such belief while you yourself wallow in it leaves one to wonder, who among us can argue the opposite side without soiling our own pants?
Patrick Davis said: “I too smell a whitewash here as with Jones and the CRU. Too few people and too many politicians have too much invested in this lie (Revenue stream) to change anything, even in the long term.”
Trust me, Patrick, besides you and me, there are plenty of other chaps (and chapesses) who are fed up with Gavin Schmidt’s taxpayer-funded smirk!!
Their reign is over.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
It may be hard for many to be objective about all this but it’s not hard for me. I’ve researched much of the evidence on both sides and it’s clear to me the case for the AGW thesis is not only weak but in some cases fraudulent. If real evidence is ever brought forward to show that AGW is likely but not necessarily proven, I would switch in an instant to the other side. Until that happens, I am objective enough to see through the scams and know that evidence such as Mann’s tree ring studies are a fraud, or at best the result of a delusional mind.
But better make sure, just because ‘their’ reign is over, that we don’t spiral down into something worse.
I mean….remember the idea of siding with Stalin to defeat Hitler.
Such is the complexities of our species. Hopefully we will learn from our mistakes.
We just need to get the bureacrascientists, like Mann out of the way.
Science and the method it employs….is the only bastion of hope in homo sapiens amygdala-generated early existence.
Long live the SM!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Pamela Gray (20:46:33) :
The point is, skeptics do not have to prove anything. They just have to disprove, or in the very least cast enough doubts about the “proof” that proponents present.
An analogy, if I told you kitchen sinks will fall from the sky on January 25th causing immense damage, you don’t have to “prove” with science that it’s not gunna happen. You will demand MY proof. If you debunk my proof or cast doubt over it, my thesis fails.
Regards “belief”. The IPCC has NEVER had solid evidence that CO2 is a culprit. But they have had the BELIEF that it is. So for 20 years they have been trying to fit whatever ‘evidence” they can find to that belief, including torturing and misrepresenting data.
Climate being one of the most complicated of earthly sciences, proof has been difficult to gather, belief is what’s been driving the issue, solidly supported by politicians and advocacy groups for whatever agendas they pursue. Take away the support by politicians and the whole thing will disappear into the backwaters of science and science blogs.
It will only take one government to fall due to AGW and the rest will pull their heads in very very quickly.
Just for clarification…translation: “SM” stands for Scientific Method not for some other thing you dirty minds may be thinking. LOL
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
savethesharks (19:31:43) :
Yes, it is a smirk, and quite bothersome I might add.
It has none of the genuine seriousness that I see on men of science that I have met in real life.
I daresay there is a political taunting in those faces, and some of the debates I have seen between warmists and skeptics, it’s plain to see who comes off with an air of superiority.
I think it’s a fair enough comment to wait until the university releases its report before commenting on the findings. While it’s easy to say they won’t be impartial, I’m sure they’ve carefully weighed up the problems with a whitewash and with a condenmnation, and know the eyes of the world are on them. I say give them time to complete their review and release it, and then start making comments.
However, I think it’s fair enough to do a separate enquiry, as long as it’s not also able to have claims of bias levelled at it. How one would achieve that in the current climate, I do not know.
Jeff Alberts: My guess is that Mann was picked on quite a bit in grade school. That, coupled with premature baldness, led to an extreme psychosis.
Hey…..I didn’t mean it all like that, yo. LOL. I was pretty much bald by the time I was 25….but I don’t have an extreme psychosis.
Or do I??? Nah. Just passion. And regardless of Mann, for the rest of us bald guys…don’t **** with us LOL.
Check out this new youtube warning to Al Gore (and, indirectly, to Michael Mann and the team). From the looks of him…when push comes to shove…I want him on my side.
Very true….ala the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley….but very darkly funny at the same time:
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
If it was not for the federal government putting a hold on destroying information, the investigation from the University would have been nothing but a pure whitewash and office shredder hey day.
No guarantee though that it might not still be that. My suspicion is that the University will find only minor problems, and Obama and his inspector generals will decide there is nothing there to investigate, allowing the wholesale destruction of real evidence prior to an honest government taking over in late 2010 or 2012.
Ok, I want one of those little hockey stick props that said “Mann made global warming”!!!!!!
rbateman (21:25:50) :
Well said. Agreed.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA