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
The last thing Penn State needs is to be seen sweeping dirt under the rug. Just take a look at what happens when collegiate sports has been found behaving badly or breaking the rules.
Those emails are damaging, and everybody knows it.
I cannot see how Penn State is anything but dismayed over what went on, and when they dig into it like we have, they will surely come away in disgust.
There comes a point when you cannot defend someone’s actions, even though you may have long held them in esteem.
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?
That’s why we have the Scientific Method, Pamela. You know that, so who are you talking about?
Pamela, I agree there are many in the skeptic camp who are not very skeptical. Some, perhaps too many, are swayed more by their political beliefs than the science. That should not however be surprising since AGW is a political issue more than a scientific one.
I also find those with a science background are more likely to be lukewarmers rather than yelling fraud.
Speaking about interesting people … just watched a press conference from November 23, 2009, where Prof. Schellnhuber said that nature makes it very easy for us to understand global warming, since
“… there is an almost linear correlation between global mean temperature and the amount of CO2, mankind is to release into the atmosphere.”
However, he was completely wrong answering what this global mean temperature currently is.
It’s German language, but watching him educate the audience is already telling.
youtube.com/watch?v=QECr4ksKNZ0&feature=player_embedded
J.Peden (21:50:48) :That’s why we have the Scientific Method, Pamela. You know that, so who are you talking about?
She has a point that none of us are immune to the trappings of cognitive dissonance.
That is why, besides the SM, we personally must keep ourselves in check 24/7.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Picked on, baldness…maybe.
I hear Mann is a very bright fellow. I wonder if that’s a big part of his problem. Some extremely intelligent criminals don’t bother to take care of very simple evidence for one apparent reason: they think they are so smart and that everyone else is so stupid that nobody is going to catch them.
I get the sense Mann has this sort of smugness of superiority about him.
He has probably also never been put into his place when it comes to battles of intelligence, and he’s too set in his age, ways, and ego to start now.
In any case, he’s certainly not very professional, and he’s certainly not “normal” in dealing with criticism.
If Mann used data that had been deliberately falsified or distorted to obtain federal funds his applications for funds could fall under the False Claims Act.
The False Claims Act provides for treble damages in the event that a false claim is proven.
When false claims have been filed in Medicare cases, federal law permitted any citizen to file a qui tam action on behalf of the federal government. One need not wait for the U.S. Attorney or the Attorney General to commence the action.
If the qui tam action succeeds the government claims the greater part of the judgment, but the person who brought the action also receives a percentage of the judgment.
In Mann’s situation, a qui tam action could be brought against both him and his university. He is their employee and under respondeat superior they may be held liable for his wrongful actions.
Treble damages could result in a handsome judgment, and the university has deep pockets.
Just thinking.
Pamela, in general, makes a good case. However, in the CAGW situation a skeptic need only discredit a key part of the argument. One does not need to believe or put forth any theory about climate warming or climate cooling. All one has to do is say (of catastrophic man-caused global warming) it is wrong and here is why.
Mann the man vs. man the species.
The maxim of “the truth shall set you free” is altogether TRUE.
The best scientists and non-scientists in the world maintain a dispassionate grid in their brains….the truth-o-meter.
And the wise person, when something that transpires to be true even though it may be contrary to their previously held convictions, makes the necessary adjustments accordingly.
This flexibility is NOT weakness (contrary to popular convention); rather, it is strength.
Seems like the skeptic side is a little more amenable to the above….than are the likes of Mann, Schmidt, and Jones (and Hansen).
At this point it is not a climate science issue…or even a political one.
It is a psychological one.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
This could actually give leftist MSM’s an excuse for leaving the church of true AGW believers.
John from MN wrote:
“No Hockey Stick here………400 years of accurate records in Central England…..Shows no influence from Co2……..John…..
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a7c87805970b-pi ”
When I started posting a chart of that far and wide I got two big slap downs:
(1) It was “only ONE thermometer!!!”
(2) Tamino had turned it into a Hockey Stick (!)
So I spent quite some time debunking both complaints, by finding more old records and figuring out what Climategate e-mailer Grant Foster (Tamino) had done to fool people:
(1) http://i49.tinypic.com/rc93fa.jpg
(2) http://i45.tinypic.com/bjsb9.jpg
Evidently the one for New York City, even had the “raw” data adjusted (see: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CENTRAL_PARK.pdf) and as of tonight I’m not sure which version of “raw” I’ve actually plotted!
You can see how Central England matches other European sites by matching ‘+’ marks placed on this plot:
http://i47.tinypic.com/2zgt4ly.jpg
Also shown are the only two long-running records that I found that showed any sign of a recent upturn.
-=NikFromNYC (originally from MN)=-
We can wait till the end of the month. The truth of Climategate and the way it came into the public eye is becoming clearer every day, so that the results of the enquiry whatever they are, will clearly define the position of the university in regard to whether they want clarity in the debate or are just defending their own interests.
mpaul (19:58:35) :
“Massachussetts, Pennsylvania, and I believe Virginia were all originally commonwealths before the Revolution and continue to use that term to describe themselves.”
Kentucky is also a commonwealth. The correct answer to ‘how many states are there in the US?’ is 46.””
I believe Texas still considers itself to be a “Republic” so the real answer would be 45. 🙂
“Self-righteous belief in liberalism/conservatism (take your pick) is no better than self-righteous belief in AGW/NCV (Natural Climate Variability).”
You can’t honestly lable the healthy skepticism of (and demands for verifiable evidence for) incredibly grand scientific claims of fact by a relatively small group of (self-affirming) climatolagists – the implications of which stand to fundamentally change our way of life – as “self-righteous belief” in NCV can you?
Surely not.
Failure to accept their (obviously learned) word for the theory of CO2 driven AGW is hardly astounding is it?
Considering the (actual) fact that the variables involved with sub degree C accurate predictions of future planetary climate are adequately numerate and unknown (or misunderstood) to make the attempt almost laughable to any practicioner of hard science. Thank goodness for them their claims will take decades or even a century to bear out huh?
Scratch that. Thank goodness for THE INTERNET and blogs like this one where an honest discourse can take place – particularly considering the loss of any sort of informed, honest and unbiased news media.
Kevin
Lowly design engineer / programmer / system simulation modeler
There are always anonymous others who are reported: “Others are insisting that these e-mails are not as damaging as they’re being portrayed, and this is just an attempt to discredit the concept of global warming.”
We hear statements like this in the UK. Never trust the words if someone “insists”. What does “insists” mean? Gordon Brown is always insisting. He insists there is enough salt to treat the roads. He insists he has eliminated boom and bust. He insists he is the only person who can get Britain out of recession. Does “insist” mean it is correct?
‘mpaul (19:58:35) :
“Massachussetts, Pennsylvania, and I believe Virginia were all originally commonwealths before the Revolution and continue to use that term to describe themselves.”
Kentucky is also a commonwealth. The correct answer to ‘how many states are there in the US?’ is 46.” ‘
But according to the constitution Article I, only “states” can have members of congress. So those 4 are cheating?
Phillip Bratby (23:36:34) :
Insist sounds like a crossroads of knowledge and incest, implying that it is the incest of knowledge, or more appropriately, knowledge that breeds only amongst knowledge of its family. The etymology actually has it coming from the Latin root insistere which can mean various things, but in this sense, I do believe it means to apply oneself to. Personally, having noticed that tendency myself, I prefer my explanation.
To the post above, I wonder how well Mann and his proxy data would hold up in court. They would have some hurdles to clear.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard
Given the way McIntyre took Mann and Briffa apart, I think that they would insist (my definition) on peer review rather than refutable. Anyhoo, sarcastic rant over, I guess. It was fun while it lasted.
Penn State has the opportunity to show the the Science Method is alive and well. They need to grasp this opportunity for open science and transparency by releasing every Email, letter, raw and adjusted data and the computer codes related to the IPCC, CRU, every member of the “team” and every scientific paper on climate from and to Micheal Mann and his cohorts.
Only then, when all has been revealed, can the truth be seen and judgment made.
Penn State must realize that the world is watching them.
Will we see the results of the investigation?
http://dailycaller.com/2010/01/12/climategate-professor-michael-mann-protected-to-maximum-extent-by-penn-state-policy/
I believe in “Mann”-made global warming and hope that this guy goes to jail for his fraud. There has to be an independent investigation. AGW is a hoax!
This is definitely something that is quite amazing. Considering the time I have spent on the blogosphere as a avid reader of blog posts regarding the case of AGW either pro or against I have come to the point to see some actions taking place. Indeed climate change is an area that has been hot for the last decade especially in the United States where lots of vested interests are based. These allegations are the culmination of those interests which depict vividly which direction is right and which wrong. History with the help of the Internet will show to future generations who is telling the truth.
PUZZLE:
A professor poses a problem for his students to solve:
(1) The poor have it.
(2) The rich need it.
(3) It is better than intellectual honesty.
(4) It is worse then the CRU team’s manipulation of data.
(5) If you eat it you die.
I’ll post the answer in a few minutes.
Michael Jankowski (22:29:20) :
“Picked on, baldness…maybe.
I hear Mann is a very bright fellow. I wonder if that’s a big part of his problem.”
I get the precise opposite impression. The person he is in the e-mails (and who handles data the way he does) strikes me as rather limited intellectually, which is what gives him a chip on his shoulder regarding any criticism of his work. In fact, everyone else in those mails strikes me as Mann’s superior intellectually – – their problem is that they seem unwilling to confront him directly due to his bullying behavior and their own assumption that Mann must know what he’s talking about (even if they occasionally suspect he doesn’t, especially Briffa and Wigley).
Mann should never have gotten into scientific research in the first place – he’s neither intellectually nor emotionally suited for that. He should have gone into sales, real estate, or something like that.
Savethesharks,
“The maxim of “the truth shall set you free” is altogether TRUE.”
Ah, but as Stalin said: “the truth is what we say it is.”