Looks like Penn State's Mann inquiry will be without the tough questions

You’d think, being academics and all, that Penn State’s internal investigation of Dr. Michael Mann would contact the people who raised questions about the MBH98 paper and the “hockey stick”.


Yes you’d think that. I’d think that, reasonable people everywhere might think that.

But this is the halls of stuffy academia. They don’t think like that.

Steve McIntyre reports that he hasn’t been asked a single question:

They didn’t contact me. The only inquiry that has contacted me so far has been an anti-terrorism officer seconded to the Norfolk Police who interviewed me about FOI requests and my views on climate change. Nor have any CA readers notified me that they’ve been contacted by the Penn State inquiry. I wonder who they interviewed. I wonder what they meant about “looking at issues from all sides”.

But there’s plenty of “plan B’s” apparently lined up, read this report from the Penn State Collegian

One for example, was previously covered on WUWT:

“…anything short of the absolute pursuit of science cannot be accepted or tolerated.”

I hope I’m wrong, I hope the inquiry asked tough questions.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 1, 2010 3:19 pm

If Mann is the only one they talk to, then, no, nothing was done wrong

Pieter F
February 1, 2010 3:20 pm

As the wider matter continues to unravel, if Penn State does not do an adequate job of investigating Mann’s academic behavior, their reputation will be negatively impacted farther down the road.

Richard Wakefield
February 1, 2010 3:20 pm

They may “hide” this for a little longer, but the current trend is clear. The planet is not heating up at all, and the public is becoming aware that AGW is a leftist scam to increase government and bring down capitalism.

February 1, 2010 3:24 pm

Q4in the poll gives me the he-be gee-bees.
I wonder if Penn replied to the Senator who voiced concerns.

February 1, 2010 3:26 pm

Once again, nothing will happen to these guys because their sponsors would look bad. What a shame we have come to this. I think back to all the folks that have been fired for much, much less than this. Frustrating.

February 1, 2010 3:27 pm

If they don’t fully investigate the issue and provide a white wash,
no matter.
AGW isn’t happening. It will continue to get colder, and the Penn State officials who fail in this task will be remembered in a side note of Bubble history.
And hopefully, a very special place in the afterlife.

February 1, 2010 3:33 pm

Typical ivory tower idiots there in PA. Mann sits at the top of that total-idiot (or is it Dr Evil-idiot) totem pole (with apologies to our native American populations for the totem reference).
He should be drawn and quartered… professionally speaking, of course. But he won’t be. I predict there will be some weasel word sorta’ mea culpa, and he’ll be back at it by springtime.
Just proves: DON’T SEND YOUR KIDS TO PENN STATE. Their science sucks.

West Houston
February 1, 2010 3:36 pm

Only 7 per cent believe that justice will be done. Alas, we are a cynical bunch!

James Sexton
February 1, 2010 3:36 pm

We didn’t really expect Penn state to cut their own throat in pursuit of truth, did we? I didn’t. I truly hope I’m wrong, but after watching this AGW issue from the beginnings, I’m very cynical of these institutions of “higher learning”. I’ve considered them part and parcel of the warming hysteria. Of all the academia, worldwide, how many of them actually pursued the truth in the matter? How many challenged prevalent thought of the day?(We can probably count on one hand.) And now, we hope that they’ll admit culpability? Not in this day and age, there’s to much money and prestige at stake.

Michael Jankowski
February 1, 2010 3:37 pm

Clearing Mann’s name with this will go a long way to clearing his name in the future when anything he says or does gets called into question. This victory will be held-up as a “get out of jail free card.”

Mike Ramsey
February 1, 2010 3:39 pm

I don’t think that Dr. Spanier is the type to box himself and his university into a corner.
I will be surprised if the investigation finds Mann innocent of all charges.
Mike Ramsey

Chris F
February 1, 2010 3:41 pm

IIRC, someone from the state of Pennsylvania sent the university a warning letter telling them it better not be a whitewash or else they’d do their own investigation. Having said that I voted for #2 like most folks. We’ve seen over and over how these fraudulent occurences are trying hard to be whitewashed so why should this incident be any different?

Mike J
February 1, 2010 3:44 pm

Lets see, the world wants reassurance that the exorbitant time and money so far expended on AGW is not wasted. Just like Mann’s “scientific” process, we will now see the appearance of intelligent, unbiased investigation while all the time the conclusion is foregone and the facts will be warped to fit. And then everyone can breathe a sigh of relief (not too deep though as this will increase levels of CO2 alarmingly) and get back to the ‘real science’ – making other square pegs fit in their round little holes.
More obfuscation, more damage control, more spin. All paid for by unwitting public purses.

Henry chance
February 1, 2010 3:46 pm

It doesn’t matter. When they shakedown alums for donations, it will get expensive. As donations fall, they will have to replace the Chancellor. If let’s say just one out of 5 alums that are players says he is out, he will be out even if there is an internal whitewash.

Layne Blanchard
February 1, 2010 3:49 pm

This surely isn’t so much an investigation into Mann’s actions as it is an investigation to see how much dirt is already on the table, and by extension, how much they’ll need to own up to. Of all the emails I read, he was discussed by others more often than he was actively participating in the fraudulent discussion. They’ll try to exonerate him if there is any hope of doing so. A lot depends on pressure from the DOE.

February 1, 2010 3:51 pm

There may be some token slap on the wrist for being an uncouth fellow, but they arent going to endanger millions in grants with any serious charge.
Penn State is investigating itself, the results will follow that fact.

February 1, 2010 3:51 pm

I would not write off Penn State just yet; they have a very good reputation in science.

Peter of Sydney
February 1, 2010 3:55 pm

If what is reported about how the inquiry is to be conducted is true then those doing the investigation are guilty of a conspiracy and should be charged accordingly. Conspiracy laws do exists and can be used in such cases.

February 1, 2010 4:01 pm

O, what cynics we are.
Been around academia far too long to see the University risk missing out on the recent million dollar grants Professor Mann has received.

Vin Charles
February 1, 2010 4:01 pm

Penn State might uphold the legal processes, but who says the law is ever about justice or the truth?

Methow Ken
February 1, 2010 4:03 pm

Penn State is (allegedly) investigating MM, and Steve McIntyre has not been asked even ONE question ?? . . .
You can already see what the end point is likely to be.

February 1, 2010 4:06 pm

Not even seeking comment from Steve McIntyre is absurd… That’s no investigation !
That’s a big red flag in my book. Can’t believe PSU would take the path of lower ethics to save face and grants. Very risky in this environment where spotlights are pointed at every aspect of the “business of AGW”.

February 1, 2010 4:12 pm

Not even the NAS calling his Hockey Stick study ‘poor science’ slowed him down. What makes anyone think that Penn State can stop him?

Geoff Sherrington
February 1, 2010 4:13 pm

Wonder what the money sponsors will think. From email 973374325.txt
Auto.com/Bloomberg News
October 26, 2000
Internet: [1]http://www.auto.com/industry/iwirc26_20001026.htm
LONDON — BP Amoco Plc, the world’s No. 3 publicly traded oil
company, and Ford Motor Co. said they will give Princeton
University $20 million over 10 years to study ways to reduce
carbon-dioxide emissions from fossil fuels. BP said it will give
$15 million. Ford, the world’s second-biggest automaker, is
donating $5 million. The gift is part of a partnership between the
companies aimed at addressing concerns about climate change.
Carbon dioxide is the most common of the greenhouse gases believed to contribute to global warming.
London-based BP said it plans to give $85 million in the next
decade to universities in the U.S. and U.K. to study environmental
and energy issues. In the past two years, the company has pledged $40 million to Cambridge University, $20 million to the University of California at Berkeley and $10 million to the University of Colorado at Boulder.”
Yes, I realise the list does not include MM’s university, but Big Oil is not silly.

February 1, 2010 4:15 pm

I think the politicians still think this can be kept under control. If the allegations are true, and they have attempted to distort the earth’s temperature record to make their case any real scientist in the scientific community cannot forgive them that. The whole of science is being devalued here for political ends. The scientific method is what allows one scientist to believe another’s work. I don’t think the paymasters understand this yet, but the scientists do. The global warmer’s science is being held in open ridicule by public comments in the mainstream press – if the scientific method is not accepted by the public major law and order issues like dna fingerprinting become questionable by juries. Science has to be science. They are tearing the scientific establishment apart for political ends, and eventually if you are not directly funded by this and you are a scientist you need to disassociate from it, and say it wouldn’t be acceptable in my field. In my view, they are toast, and the clock is ticking.

February 1, 2010 4:18 pm

I’m guessing that “Mann did some things wrong but they don’t matter.” will be Penn State’s answer to what is currently a $500000 question.

February 1, 2010 4:24 pm

O/T Lord Monckton is doing a great job in Oz, and not just in speaking to the converted:
Here he is debating on Melbourne ABC radio:
Non-Melbournians will not appreciate the significance of this exposure. Jon Faine’s audience are often well-meaning thinking folks, but relying on ‘The Age’ (Fairfax) as they would, and the local ABC, they would know little of the recent collapse of legitimacy of AGW alarmism.
Here is Faine gatekeepering on climategate:
Hopefully some of these folks also following ABC ‘Lateline’ coverage:
For a left-leaning (reputably) pro-Labor and Government-run media, the ABC is not doing too badly afterall.

Kevin Kilty
February 1, 2010 4:24 pm

I cannot think of a single institution where I have worked, with the possible exception of Washington State University, which would have made any stronger effort at an “investigation”. There is no one of consequence they are required to be accountable to, and without accountability there is no integrity or truth.
In the end education is the equivalent of a “sacred cow” in our society. No one will ever punish them no matter how egregious the offense, unless it involves demonstrable criminality, or might get politicians unelected. Think of the Duke Lacrosse case.

February 1, 2010 4:24 pm

I’ve worked in universities and this is how enquiries tend to go, especially when there’s a lot of funding and senior figures involved. I’m sure they all think it will just blow over and we’ll return to normal pretty soon … just remember they and so many other warmists absolutely believe that sceptics are liars and deniers and pawns of big oil so how can you put any credence in their crazed allegations. CRU will probably be the same, though the Guardian’s attack on Jones tonight is very odd … Whitewash ahoy!

Ron de Haan
February 1, 2010 4:25 pm

I did not put out a vote.
Why not?
ClimateGate is an ongoing process.
If Penn State turns it’s investigation into a cover up, they will face the onset of an external investigation.
The reputation of science is at stake here and nobody can afford to let Mann walk away from his fraudulent practices.
The same goes for NOAA GISS, NASA and all those parties involved in the IPCC.
This won’t stop until the last stone is turned upside down.

February 1, 2010 4:26 pm

He will be found guilty of something minor (like driving too quickly on campus) and will leave (via a “for the cameras” hissy fit) to a nice cushy job elsewhere prepared for him by Penn State. The “Science” will be as robust as a robust thing, will leap short building in a couple of bounds and will need a bit more money to be even more irrefutable that it is already.

Dave N
February 1, 2010 4:27 pm

They interview John Costella, or at least look at his analysis?

Andy Scrase
February 1, 2010 4:27 pm

From the BBC:
Harrabin’s Notes: Raising the error bar
In his regular column, BBC environment analyst Roger Harrabin says that one certainty in the climate debate is the existence of uncertainty – and that it must be addressed.
He forgot to mention that other certainty – the existence of widespread fraud.

Fred from Canuckistan
February 1, 2010 4:28 pm

It is never the crime it is always the cover up that causes the most damage.
PSU has the option of cutting their losses and actually investigating the role Mann has played in Climategate or becoming part of the cover-up.

February 1, 2010 4:29 pm

Incompetence is not an excuse.

February 1, 2010 4:31 pm

If I was a Penn State alumnus, I’d be contacting fellow alumni to tell the school: no more donations unless you conduct a transparent investigation and interview all parties on the record – including those on Mann’s enemies list like McIntyre & McKitrick.
Fat chance of that. But think of the money you’ll save.

Alan S
February 1, 2010 4:31 pm

I think wait and see, when the Gaurdian in the UK has become so desperate they are willing to throw Jones under the bus, anything is possible.
The rats are jumping ship as quickly as they can, whilst keeping their skirts as dry as they dare.

John Whitman
February 1, 2010 4:33 pm

The Daily Collegian article referenced in the above post says –
” The inquiry’s findings will determine if the university will further investigate Mann’s work. Penn State President Graham Spanier addressed the inquiry and the panel’s work during the Board of Trustees meeting on Jan. 22. ”
So, the past two months investigation has basically been a gatekeeper activity. They are deciding if a full investigation is warranted, if so “open gates” if not “close gates”. A finding of “no additional investigation required” would seem very very dangerous to PSU, so my thinking is that they will pass the buck to another investigation by saying something like “reasonable grounds to recommend a fuller investigation” or some such. At the same time they will pay lip service to the climate establishment by saying ” the respected and professional Dr Michael Mann deserves a fuller investigation to give him the opportunity clear his name if full . . . . ”
I am not an optimist, i’m not, i’m not, not, not . . . . OK maybe a little.

February 1, 2010 4:44 pm

“Settle (sophomore-political science and history) said the university’s handling of the inquiry unsettles him”.
Seems to sum it up very politely. uummm
Thank you for your patience, we have concluded are investigation and have drawn a line under this one, move along now please we have work to do.

February 1, 2010 4:44 pm

M. Mann has lost his reputation and won’t collect the mountains of money as he did before. It is like in the stock market: you don’t pay for last year’s cash flow but for tomorrow’s. M. Mann is not what he was and will never be. Will his valuation crash or go down swiftly?
Penn state will lose, whatever they decide. If they back Mann, they sit in his boat, which might be a bit too dangerous.

Charles Higley
February 1, 2010 4:46 pm

“DocMartyn (15:51:59) :
I would not write off Penn State just yet; they have a very good reputation in science.”
With all of that grant money in jeopardy? I’ll bet they vote friendly.

February 1, 2010 4:47 pm

re the guardian article about dr. wang. seems he is a mechanical engineer:
Dr. Wei-Chyung Wang: Prof. Wang received his B.S. from National Cheng Kung University in Tainan, Taiwan in 1965; his M.S. from the State University of New York at Buffalo in 1970; and his Doctor of Engineering Sciences from Columbia University in New York City in 1973. All three degrees were in mechanical engineering.
btw bbc ‘disappeared’ the ‘95%’ in the following article about an Oxford University study changing it to ‘significant emissions cuts’ – click to see the change:
BBC NEWS | Business | ‘Manage flights’ to cut emissions
Better air traffic control and other measures determining how, when and where planes fly could cut aviation emissions by up to 95%, it found. …
news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/business/8487590.stm – 20 hours ago
unfortunately the 95% had already been mentioned in electronic news coverage and in quite a number of press articles around the world. sloppy.

Ron de Haan
February 1, 2010 4:47 pm

Interesting theory from Dr Timothy Ball
Climategate became necessary to achieve the political objective
Climategate Necessary to Cover Incorrect Climate Basics of IPCC

February 1, 2010 4:48 pm

Fin Times getting better, but why not spell out the ‘other allegations’?
UK Financial Times: A Himalayan gaffe
This Himalayan gaffe comes on the heels of “climategate” – a British scandal in which scientists at the University of East Anglia were accused of deflecting requests for information and data from known climate sceptics. It has also stirred up a series of further allegations about other claims contained in the IPPC’s report..
Climate science is a highly emotive area. There is so much at stake. If the more doom-laden observers are correct, the outcome for the world is almost too frightful to contemplate. Of course, scientists are always going to have a view about the politics. What is vital is that there should never be the suggestion that enthusiasm for the cause has led to the “reverse engineering” of findings…
The IPCC must learn from this gaffe. Not only is its own credibility at stake, but possibly the cause of climate science also.

February 1, 2010 4:48 pm

“I hope the inquiry asks the tough questions.”
I hope that Obama is gonna give me that Unicorn he promised.

Greg Cavanagh
February 1, 2010 4:53 pm

After seeing so much of the settled science pass us by in the last 10 years, and reading so many comments by scientists on both sides of the agenda, my opinion of Universities and intelligentsia in general is pretty low.
I’m betting Penn State would rather hide this issue with as little fan fare as possible. I guess we are truly are a sceptical bunch.

Al Gore's Brother
February 1, 2010 4:54 pm

Mike Mann should get 20 whack’s with a hockey stick!

Roger Knights
February 1, 2010 4:56 pm

It’s interesting that there was little material from Mann in the CRUtape letters. Maybe the hacker held it back for some reason. Perhaps to embarrass whitewashers after the fact.

February 1, 2010 4:58 pm

We’ve seen how the first UEA response on their own website was withdrawn; how the charges of “hacked” have muted to “we don’t know”; how the police investigation called in by CRU found them guilty of breach of FOIA intent even if not technically prosecutable; how the police investigation has been backed up by the Parliament investigation; and how this Parliament investigation is actually asking for interested parties to send in their statements.
That’s a heck of a lot of ground shifting. And that’s just at the academic end. Then there’s the PressGate happening right now, with, what, Grauniad jumping ship???
I’d like to hope that Penn will have had the sense to say they need a higher-level investigation, rather than be driven into it and lose even more face.

dr kill
February 1, 2010 5:00 pm

I’m a proud Penn State College of Science alumnus. I have been asking for clarification since the beginning of this. My friday request for details of the finding from Dean Easterling drew this response from Spanier’s office today.
Dear dr kill:
Thank you for your email. In accordance with policy RA-10 under which Penn State has been reviewing allegations against Professor Mann, the inquiry period ended on Saturday, January 30. It is expected that a statement on this phase of the process will be issued within the next few days.
Tom Poole
Thomas G. Poole, Ph.D
Vice President for Administration

dr kill
February 1, 2010 5:02 pm

And for the thousandth time, Penn State is The Pennsylvania State University, in State College, PA. Penn is The University of Pennsylvania, in Philadelphia, PA. One is land grant, one is Ivy League.

Clayton Hollowell
February 1, 2010 5:10 pm

Really, you people were expecting something other than a whitewash? Really?
Grow up, science left the building long ago. And the faculty at your average university (staffed full of Ethnic Studies, Sociology, Social Justice, Cultural Anthropology, etc… professors, actively engage in non-work work, and science with no scientific content) not only doesn’t believe in real science, they don’t even believe in the ideas that underlie it (like, you know, logic).

DJ Meredith
February 1, 2010 5:14 pm

I work at UNR, and I can tell you first hand (wait, I think I already did before in another thread…) that the university has spin doctors that make Leno’s joke writers pale in comparison.
No matter what Mann has done, they’ll skip around it, put perfume on it, and call it a great moment in science where we all benefit from a new openess.. just watch.
UNR. Drowning sheep, starving cattle, hidden cameras, drunk cops. We got it all. Nobody goes to jail.
Go Pack!

February 1, 2010 5:16 pm

And to think I almost went to Penn State to start a Masters… but they initially rejected me till they evaluated my GRE scores and came begging to have me LOL. Dodged a bullet mind you, because the head of my intended research department was quite a character (being highly charitable here… let’s just say he was dodgier than Mann in a dodgem car).

Henry chance
February 1, 2010 5:22 pm

Geoff Sherrington (16:13:39) :
Wonder what the money sponsors will think. From email 973374325.txt
Now it shifts. While ford and BP donated, they in return could squalk if some out of control greenie weenie vilified theem with a nasty accusation of pollution. Even if Ford gave the money to mechanical engineering. the chancelor gets a call if Mann starts denegrating automotive companies and killing the planet.
Now Ford sends a few million less because Mann and fellow greenies can’t do much damage.

James Sexton
February 1, 2010 5:27 pm

Regardless of what Penn state does or doesn’t do, that pesky thing called TRUTH will still keep getting in the way. The thing that gets me the most worked up is how the sciences kept getting muddled. I’m not a scientist. I’m not really a mathematician, but I love numbers. While the practice can be a tad confusing at times, it seems a simple concept to me. They’ve never convinced me about their math. It was always fuzzy math that wouldn’t have held up even to a high-school algebra instructor. Given the recent light shined on their methods, its a small wonder how it never added up properly. Thank God for the people and the websites(much like this one!!!) that took the time. I tried on occasions, but the task proved to daunting to take on my own and the issues kept changing as fast as I could read about them. Hats off to all involved!!!

nigel jones
February 1, 2010 5:27 pm

I voted for the wrist slap option, which I reckon is their natural inclination. It makes sense if they think it’s going to die down.
Thinking again, it must be occurring to them that this is playing with fire. It looks increasingly like a sea change in AGW and a whitewash would do them immense damage.
Using every dodge to delay it until they can see which way the cards are falling would work. Passing it over to an external investigation would take it out of their hands, they may not like the results but it would be better than being caught putting the fix in.

February 1, 2010 5:31 pm

As much as I’d like to see Mann thrown out of his job I’m not sure it matters much. No matter how this is decided his standing in the court of public opinion has been severely and permanently damaged.
He was one of the high priests of AGW, who is going to take him seriously now? Who is going to take any of this so called science seriously anymore without bullet proof evidence and extremely public airing of the methods and data behind any new findings?
I’m actually enjoying the slow death and public humiliation of this scam and the people behind more than a than a rapid demise. It takes time to enjoy the good things.

February 1, 2010 5:32 pm

Steve M not being asked to testify? There is no investigation.

West Houston (15:36:16) :
Only 7 per cent believe that justice will be done. Alas, we are a cynical bunch!

Cynical, bruised and wiser.
Not just any PA senator, but: Pennsylvania State Senator Jeff Piccola (jpiccola@pasen.gov). Contact him and get HIS update on the PSU investigation and let him know what you think.
The idea that PSU’s cover-up will taint it worse will happen only if somebody acts on it. Another commenter mentions that PSU has a fine science reputation – it’s on the line with Mann and Mann is the only one who has put their ‘reputation’ in jeopardy.

February 1, 2010 5:33 pm

I think he has to be deemed to have improperly assisted in the deletion of information so as to avoid a FOIA request. That has to meet some standard of academic dishonesty.
As I recall, Mann received an e-mail from Phil Jones advising him to delete e-mails so as to thwart FOIA requests, and also requesting that Mann advise a third party (can’t remeber the name) to also delete e-mails for the same reason. Mann’s response to Phil Jones, although not indicating that he personally deleted e-mails, certainly indicated that he, at Jones’s suggestion, instructed that third party to do so.
When Jones got called out for deleting information pertinent to a FOIA request, Mann’s response was that he didn’t condone what Jones got caught at doing, and that he certainly didn’t delete any e-mails. This seems a little disingenuous given that Mann advised someone else to do what he claims he doesn’t condone. Also, I find it highly likely Mann is not telling the truth when he says he didn’t delete any e-mails.

John M
February 1, 2010 5:34 pm

So since they claim to have looked at all the e-mails, presumably they will have a comment about this exchange:

From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t
have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!


From: Michael Mann
To: Phil Jones
Subject: Re: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 08:12:02 -0400
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Hi Phil,
laughable that CA would claim to have discovered the problem. They would
have run off to the Wall Street Journal for an exclusive were that to
have been true.
I’ll contact Gene about this ASAP. His new email is: generwahl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
talk to you later,

(emphasis added)
A competent inquiry would demand to know whether Mann did what he said he was going to do: Ask someone to delete e-mails in order to prevent the IPCC rules from being adhered to.

February 1, 2010 5:35 pm

I’ll believe we’re making progress on tearing down the AGW edifice when nearly every story about one aspect of the science being corrupted no longer contains the disclaimer “but all other science is solid and this case doesn’t undermine the larger case for AGW.”

richard verney
February 1, 2010 5:36 pm

The fact that the Guardian newspaper has carried an article which is sceptic in tone is a seismic shift in MSM in the UK. I never thought that I would witness the Guardian reporting on something which suggests that the ‘setttled science’ may in some way be flawed and debate required.

February 1, 2010 5:40 pm

The Penn State inquiry was born in panic from a surprise attack They have, predictably, closed ranks. They need an exceptional leader to get out of this unscathed, and I really hope one steps forward. I doubt it.
If its a whitewash it will surely come back to haunt them in the near future, maybe
This story has legs; lots of legs.
Whatever the outcome, it will certainly not be the end for Michael Mann.
And Michael Mann will not be the only casualty.
People are still in shock from the constant revaluations, and Its difficult to encapsulate the enormity of it all. Once the shock is over and it begins sink in there will, I think, be a great call to account.
I derive no pleasure from witnessing a person dishonored – Many of us have have trod perilously close – but it is necessary if trust in science is to be saved.

Jeff B.
February 1, 2010 5:40 pm

I don’t expect them to admit anything. This is their religion. They are reluctant to let go.

February 1, 2010 5:43 pm

Well, I voted for #2, but I know that whatever the outcome, it will be qualified by:
“This finding has absolutely no effect on the overwhelming proof that climate change is happening and it is largely man-made”

February 1, 2010 5:45 pm

Sorry but the cat’s already out of the bag on this question:
There is no integrity in higher education at any level.

February 1, 2010 5:45 pm

Just remember Penn, as goes the inquiry, so goes your reputation.

Leon Brozyna
February 1, 2010 5:59 pm

It won’t be a whitewash – it’ll be a beigewash – PSU will find he was a little naughty but is still a valued member of the faculty doing important work on climate change, blah, blah, blah…

February 1, 2010 5:59 pm

I’m a little surprised that the Engineering School hasn’t publicly condemned the Enviros. Engineering has been frustrated with the leftist and abstract trends of the rest of PSU for a long time, and understands that failed academic theories lead to real deaths.
For instance, Engineering runs its own English courses where its students can learn to communicate instead of learning to hate Western Civilization, and runs its own math and physics courses where its students will learn useful and valid procedures instead of useless theories.

Pamela Gray
February 1, 2010 6:02 pm

The goose that lays golden eggs will not be sent packing right away because he has laid a rotten one. Underlings might go though (his lab assistants etc). On the other end, his super might be told to rein that dude in. But the way things go in research, Mann will be replaced by the next super-enthusiastic darling up and coming researcher of the department head and Mann will be relegated to studying tea leaves.

James Sexton
February 1, 2010 6:04 pm

lol, old44 gonna make dr kill mad!!! Not Penn, Pennsylvania State. Penn has their own academic difficulties!!! (Like why they didn’t try to correct their state rivals would be one.) Used to be Ivy league meant something other than excessive tuition rates. sigh

Steve Fitzpatrick
February 1, 2010 6:05 pm

It will be just a wrist slap to keep the local pols quiet, nothing more. Besides, the Earth needs to be saved from humanity you know… and there’s too much funding involved, no matter what he did.

James Sexton
February 1, 2010 6:07 pm

So, can we infer that “critical thinking” is not only not taught, but rather highly discouraged in education?

John Whitman
February 1, 2010 6:12 pm

If Dr Mann did deleted incriminating emails, wouldn’t the deleted emails still be on a backup server somewhere and/or archived somewhere? Wouldn’t the metadate of their email processes show he did delete? If so wouldn’t the PSU investigator find them?
Any IT knowledgeable commenters here today?
Are all Mann’s email activities recoverable even if he deleted them on his PC?

John Whitman
February 1, 2010 6:15 pm

Sorry for several grammer and spelling errors in my previous comment.

February 1, 2010 6:23 pm

I couldn’t see an option for “Our funding depends on a greenwash”, so had to vote for the smack on the wrist, which is probably the closest.
Sad days. I feel like the AGW brigade have enough momentum to take them over the finishing line, with such quips as “cooling is warming”, “we need another 30 years and then you’ll see” and “of course it’s all about CO2” carrying them there.

February 1, 2010 6:28 pm

One would hope that the review board knows there are more people interested
in the outcome of this review than likely all previous reviews combined.
If not, they may be in for a big surprise, no matter which way the outcome

February 1, 2010 6:33 pm

Lucy Skywalker (16:58:22) :
“That’s a heck of a lot of ground shifting. And that’s just at the academic end. Then there’s the PressGate happening right now, with, what, Grauniad jumping ship???”
Lucy, what next? They sack Monbiot!!!! (Please, please!) Sad Old George must be raving over the article!

James Sexton
February 1, 2010 6:33 pm

John, the answer to your question is probably yes, depending upon many factors. Backup policies….how their network is setup…..reliability of the backups(yes, that’s a big issue in the IT world), but the biggest problem is finding the darn thing. Recall the previous U.S. presidents missing e-mail problem.(Hopefully, the head IT person at Penn St. isn’t a political appointee.) Yes, they had the e-mails, but finding them in a coherent order was a big problem. I’m the IT guy at a small electric utility. Yes, I’ve backups. Restoring e-mails is an issue that scares me. In theory, every thing comes back just like it was. In practical application, it is never that easy.

February 1, 2010 6:59 pm

To what extent has the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (i.e., the legislature in Harrisburg) looked into this issue? Both here in America and overseas, there is a tendency to overlook the fact that we are a federation of states, and as a land grant institution, Penn State is very much under the influence of Pennsylvania’s state government.
In the Delaware Valley, unfortunately, the principal MSM conduits are represented by The Inquirer and its stablemate on North Broad Street, The Philadelphia Daily News, and the publisher of these rags are progressive (read: “fascist”) in the extreme. Their editorial policy with regard to Climategate has consisted entirely of “sell, deny, delay.”
Any news from Penn State alumni situated elsewhere in the country or the Commonwealth on how the General Assembly and the state Senate are handling this issue?

February 1, 2010 7:00 pm

Yes, Penn St has just completed their “inquiry” phase, which will be used to determine if there is need for a full “investigation”. (I chair a committee at my institution that carries these out–there are time limits, but we can grant ourselves an extension if necessary). I will assume that there will be sufficient evidence of misconduct to warrant an investigation, but that will go on for many more months. We use the criteria of whether there is sufficient evidence to suspect scientific misconduct, and whether we expect to be able to make a determination (is the evidence available, are there witnesses). It’s a low bar for us.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Dr. Mann only moved to Penn St in 2005. Anything prior to that would not be of interest to Penn State’s committee. That would likely narrow the scope of allegations to be investigated. The Mann papers in the late 90s are not going to be an issue. I would guess that the major allegation would involve non-responsiveness to FOIA requests or destruction of evidence, but that might not fall under typical scientific misconduct (data fabrication or falsification and plagiarism).
Dr. Mann was previously at University of Virginia. He was there during the hockey stick controversy. I am an alum of UVa, and was with the outgoing president of the university last week. I asked him “How did you let Michael Mann get away?” He looked puzzled. I followed with “…and aren’t you glad you did?” He said “There are some subjects that are too deep for me to get into.” (this was after all during a cocktail hour before he addressed local alumni). I mumbled something about scientific integrity and he countered with some satisfaction that that other guy (Pat Michaels) also left. And said “He didn’t even believe in global warming!”. At that, I handed the President off to the next waiting party.

John Whitman
February 1, 2010 7:03 pm

James Sexton (18:33:58) :
Thanks for your info.
As, I think more about this it seems that the US Gov does have regulations on contractors for retaining info related to Gov contracts and specific regulations on how it is retained. Does Gov also have for grants to universities like PSU?
Anybody with grant experience know about US Gov regulations on universities retaining info related to implementing the grants? Would emails of grantees be considered property of US Gov?

February 1, 2010 7:12 pm

Academia is so tolerant of their members that it is very rare when one is chastised. The University of New Mexico has a football coach who physical struck an assistant coach in a dispute over coaching. They conducted a “through” investigation and a letter of reprimand was placed in his file. The public was livid with anger and after another investigation he was suspended without pay for two weeks. He has four more years on his contract and the LOBOS lost all their games.
The problem is that academic administrations do not have enough courage to fight against possible lawsuits. In Mann’s case, he would be judged by a committee of faculty who would not consider his behavior unethical and besides that he has generated juicy government grants. If Mann is a tenured faculty or is on a tenure track, it would be unusual for him to be reprimanded. The world of academe believes in total academic freedom. That freedom includes freedom from responsibility. His crimes were against science not the university. Most of the non-science faculty would be able understand the nature of the crimes or care about them. From my own experience as a faculty member in a large California University, I can cite numerous examples of totally unethical behavior on the part of a faculty member that was totally ignored by the administration. However, there are some PC issued that would get you fired. Whatever they do it will pall in comparison to the potential crime against humanity that Mann conspired to committee.

February 1, 2010 7:13 pm

The depressing fact is that Mann will likely survive (professionally, that is) to lie another day. I would only believe the puff-ball inquisition did a true investigation if they ultimately send him packing. Instead, he’ll get the obligatory wrist-slap, he’ll mutter some inanities about being more careful in the future to document his work, and his lies will continue.
But, there is hope for Mann: If he was to cross over to those with the anti-warmist allegences (those who have sought, and fought against overwhelming odds, and continue to seek the truth in the demonstrable science) and come clean… he would thus be hailed a hero. Come on, Mike. Man-up (pun intended) and tell the truth for once in your worthless existance.

George M
February 1, 2010 7:27 pm

Think of this. The US MSM is still in full AGW mode. The PSU wheels are not likely to be reading blogs like this, they will be reading RC and the NYT. Until some heavy hitters in the MSM start reporting the truth, PSU will think they can easily get away with a whitewash. What I would love to be able to do is to send a copy of OPEN* to all the US media and PSU bunch.
*See Marc Morano’s Climate Depot for details. The Indians are geting up to speed.

François GM
February 1, 2010 7:31 pm

John Whitman (18:15:14) :
Sorry for several grammer and spelling errors in my previous comment
Gee. Funny. Must have been a tough day.

February 1, 2010 7:34 pm

GeneDoc had written:

Dr. Mann was previously at University of Virginia. He was there during the hockey stick controversy.

As an alumnus of the University of Virginia, GeneDoc, have you any further information on the extent to which the administrators in Charlottesville are looking to their own tochus coverage anent the probability that Dr. Mann’s grant applications during his tenure there had been substantively fraudulent?
I would think that the employing institution has a degree of responsibility with regard to the conduct of an academic staff member.
It’d be interesting to see whether the RICO Act applies to universities which have supported the perpetrators of scientific fraud.

February 1, 2010 7:48 pm

I hope this is not redundant but remember that the State Senate in PA is Republican and they have already stated when the enquiry was announced that they would scrutinize the results carefully. The Senate leader hinted that state funding may be in jeapardy if the leaders felt that any part of the enquiry was or appeard to be a “whitewash”. I believe I saw a U Tube link from WUWT the day the enquiry was announced.

Steve Sloan
February 1, 2010 7:50 pm

The interesting part of this entire situation is whether the Goracle etal would be publicly humiliated or whether they would slowly lose all credability, funding and respect ,fading into oblivion.
It’s starting to look like the latter because all the small minded dummies who were duped can save face by letting the matter slowly fade away, which detracts from the very real satsfaction public humiliation and character assasisination would provide!

February 1, 2010 7:57 pm

My pessimism has overwhelmed my choice in the survey…. I just can’t see the “peer review” chastising its own….. Nope, they’ll find it’s all fine except for a few, slap on the wrist, irregularities….
…. But we can always live in hope of real scrutiny I ‘spose. But I wouldn’t hold my breath.

February 1, 2010 8:04 pm

/cynicism on
You have certainly heard that there are banks, insurance companies, and automobile companies too big to allow to fail. I fear the AGW industry may be thought of, or even promoted in the same manner now.
/cynicism off

February 1, 2010 8:39 pm

dr kill (17:02:59) : And for the thousandth time, Penn State is The Pennsylvania State University, in State College, PA. Penn is The University of Pennsylvania, in Philadelphia, PA.
And State Pen is not Penn State though one can be an alumni of both …

Steve in SC
February 1, 2010 8:46 pm

Penn State had best put finger to the wind for a quick check.
A whitewash will let the Mann dollars continue to flow.
However, the political landscape is a changing and they may be playing fast and loose with their accreditation in about 4 years time.

February 1, 2010 8:55 pm

Tucci (19:34:15):
I would guess that if an allegation regarding data falsification was made to the appropriate authorities at UVa, they would be duty bound to look into it. There is a time limit, but I can’t remember what it is at the moment. Five years is probably close.
I’ve been curious about why Mann left Virginia, and that’s why I posed the peculiar question to the President, hoping to get him to disclose whether there had been something controversial about Dr. Mann while at UVa. I’d guess no, but the President was rather guarded. However the results of these investigations can be kept confidential within the institution. For any case involving federal funds from the Department of Health and Human Services, we have to report our findings to the Office of Research Integrity. I suppose there are equivalent bodies in Department of Energy.

February 1, 2010 9:15 pm

It really is worth spending the time, for those of us who are [semi]-retired like myself, posting on MSM comment boards when climate stuff comes up, so long as we give some chapter and verse. It’s timeconsuming, but important. If even one person with influence ‘gets it’, that’s a job well done.
I’m sure the fact that there were such a huge number of comments following the Observer article on Sunday (over 750 when I last looked last night) and that so many of them esp the more well-argued and well-informed were from the sceptic pov, might have influenced the Guardian environment editors to take a closer look at what’s going on.
There are a large number of sceptic comments too on today’s GW offering on the Independent website. Its important to keep hitting them with proven facts, not just expostulation and name-calling, which we can safely leave to the other side!
I do agree though that penetrating the MSM worldwide is not proving easy, and the mainstream TV networks are a very tough nut to crack, esp the BBC which is still respected worldwide for reasons I utterly fail to understand. We all just have to keep pointing out the truth. After all, if Goebbels dictum that if you repeat a lie often enough people will believe is is true, how much more true must that be of the truth?
Another of Hitler’s dictums:
“What good fortune for governments that people do not think”

February 1, 2010 9:18 pm

{S Has anyone yet seen the headline which I live in hope to see:
“Al Gored by bullish sceptics”

rb Wright
February 1, 2010 9:42 pm

A prompt completion of the Penn State investigation could be a good thing. This would allow a committe of the the Pennsylvania State Legislature to begin a much more thorough investigation of Dr. Mann. Right now, the most significant climategate investigation is in the UK, with the committee from the House of Commons.

February 1, 2010 10:05 pm

These three Penn State investigators might realize that they hold the entire reputation of the university in their hands.
They might decide to do the right thing.
Maybe they didn’t think they needed to ask Steve McIntyre any questions to understand his claims. I’ve never asked Steve McIntyre any questions, and I understand his claims.

Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)
February 1, 2010 11:39 pm

pat (16:48:28) wrote:
“scientists at the University of East Anglia were accused of deflecting requests for information and data from known climate sceptics.”
Deflecting?! Obstructing is more like it … then again, for anyone rooting for the “hockey-stick team”, deflecting fits right in with the rules of the climate change game.
Pete (18:33:53)
“Lucy, what next? They sack Monbiot!!!! (Please, please!) Sad Old George must be raving over the article”
No doubt! Don’t know what the pecking order is at the Guardian, but Pearce actually had three Feb. 1 articles. The first two indicated a willingness to throw Jones under the bus:
Leaked climate change emails scientist ‘hid’ data flaws
Exclusive: Key study by East Anglia professor Phil Jones was based on suspect figures
linked to:
Strange case of moving weather posts and a scientist under siege
In the first part of a major investigation of the so-called ‘climategate’ emails, one of Britain’s top science writers reveals how researchers tried to hide flaws in a key study
Towards the end of the second, we find the obligatory:
“It is important to keep this in perspective, however. This dramatic revision of the estimated impact of urbanisation on temperatures in China does not change the global picture of temperature trends. There is plenty of evidence of global warming, not least from oceans far from urban influences.”
But in his third article, he does “penance” by defending Mann:
How the ‘climategate’ scandal is bogus and based on climate sceptics’ lies
Claims based on email soundbites are demonstrably false – there is manifestly no evidence of clandestine data manipulation
“Almost all the media and political discussion about the hacked climate emails has been based on brief soundbites publicised by professional sceptics and their blogs. In many cases, these have been taken out of context and twisted to mean something they were never intended to.
[A defense of Mann that begins badly by calling Canada’s queen of the greens “Elizabeth Green” (her name is Elizabeth May), wanders all over the map with his predictable pontifications and concludes:]
“Verdict: not guilty”
Looks like he’s still committed to the very tarnished “gold standard”.

February 2, 2010 12:20 am

Dave N:
No, they didn’t. (No surprise there.)

February 2, 2010 1:03 am

Penn State Gate anyone?

February 2, 2010 1:58 am

Was anyone really expecting anything other than a whitewash?

Michael Larkin
February 2, 2010 2:53 am

Lucy Skywalker (16:58:22) :
“how the police investigation called in by CRU found them guilty of breach of FOIA intent even if not technically prosecutable”
What about this?:
“There is something very odd indeed about the statement by the Information Commission on its investigation into “Climategate”, the leak of emails from East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit. Gordon Smith, the deputy commissioner, confirms that the university’s refusal to answer legitimate inquiries made in 2007 and 2008 was an offence under S.77 of the Information Act. But he goes on to claim that the Commission is powerless to bring charges, thanks to a loophole in the law – “because the legislation requires action within six months of the offence taking place.
“Careful examination of the Act, however, shows that it says nothing whatever about a time limit. The Commission appears to be trying to confuse this with a provision of the Magistrates Act, that charges for an offence cannot be brought more than six months after it has been drawn to the authorities’ attention – not after it was committed. In this case, the Commission only became aware of the offence two months ago when the emails were leaked – showing that the small group of British and American scientists at the top of the IPCC were discussing with each other and with the university ways to break the law, not least by destroying evidence, an offence in itself.”
I’ve been waiting for some development of this story but haven’t as yet seen any.

Roger Knights
February 2, 2010 2:55 am

I am an alum of UVa, and was with the outgoing president of the university last week. I asked him “How did you let Michael Mann get away?” He looked puzzled. I followed with “…and aren’t you glad you did?” He said “There are some subjects that are too deep for me to get into.”

There’s a loose end for a kittenish journalist to tug at.

Some Guy
February 2, 2010 3:23 am

The entire purpose of this “investigation” will be to cover the asses of everyone at Penn State who might possibly have colluded with Mann and the rest of the Hockey Team in perpetrating their fraud.

Ken Harvey
February 2, 2010 5:01 am

I know nothing of Penn State, and yet I can predict with certainty how it will proceed. It will act precisely in that manner that it perceives its overall funding flows being best protected. Professional pride, integrity, the scientific method – all will be sacrificed at the altar of mammon. I imagine that they are currently torn between a rapid whitewash and a long dragging out of proceedings to enable a change of emphasis depending on which way the wind blows, or, we might say, the way the climate changes.

Peter Miller
February 2, 2010 5:23 am

I believe the general concensus of opinion here is correct:
1. Outcome of inquiry: Slapped wrist.
2. The main climate fraud, the Hockey Stick, was created while Mann was not at Penn State, so it will be argued it’s not Penn State’s Problem.
However, I think fears of a real inquiry being imposed and/or lawsuits will result in Penn State demanding his resignation within a year for personal or health reasons. After which, even Pachauri’s TERI won’t touch him.

February 2, 2010 5:24 am

When the Republicans regain a majority on the Committees, Mann will be toast.

February 2, 2010 5:29 am

@ Steve in SC (20:46:56) : Penn State had best put finger to the wind for a quick check.A whitewash will let the Mann dollars continue to flow. However, the political landscape is a changing and they may be playing fast and loose with their accreditation in about 4 years time.
Probably not even that long. Our Attorney General is a Republican…and he’s running for governor.

February 2, 2010 5:50 am

Penn State gets millions in grants for finding global warming.
AGW is a prominant political cause of the left.
Penn State is conducting the investigation with no independent review.
Mann brings in grant money and finds global warming.
Mann will be exhonerated of any wrong-doing.
Could there be another result? Really?

February 2, 2010 6:15 am

Reply to mandolinjon (19:12:49)
Mann is a tenured faculty or is on a tenure track, it would be unusual for him to be reprimanded.

Judging from his CV, he has tenure at PSU, but it’s not so clear what happened at UVa. His CV (online at his PSU webpage) states that his rank there was “Assistant Professor. He left UVa after 6 years. Those facts strongly suggests he did not get tenure at UVa despite, or perhaps because of, his Hockey Stick fame. Unless someone close to Mann’s tenure review blabs, those details will probably never become public.
The world of academe believes in total academic freedom. That freedom includes freedom from responsibility.
Sad, but too true. Academics operate by an honor system. There’s very little accountability, and it’s almost impossible to fire a tenured professor. Still, there are other forms of punishment which can occur because the stock-in-trade in academe is Reputation. Academics will go to enormous effort to protect it, but a tarnished rep is like poison both on campus and beyond.

His crimes were against science not the university. . . However, there are some PC issued that would get you fired. Whatever they do it will pall in comparison to the potential crime against humanity that Mann conspired to committee[sic].

More like crimes against the economy.
Unfortunately, with the possible exception of the obstructing FOIA requests and misuse of grant funding, and only if these can be proven, not many of the actions of Mann, Jones, et. al. are not really against the law, criminal or civil. They will claim that the scientific research was undertaken in good faith. As I said, the entire academic world, not just science, rests upon the honor system and Reputation. It’s a gray, gray area, legally speaking. I agree that more controls and accountability are necessary, but going overboard, by abolishing tenure for example, risks punishing vastly more honest academics for the egregious behavior of a few.
Still, I have hope. I believe that the bad science of AGW will be corrected, in time, by good science. It will take the general public time to digest a revised understanding of climate change, and True Believers — Greenpeace, Al Gore, et. al. — may never be convinced.
As for the scientists/perps in this case, the skeptic’s best hope is Karmic Justice. A pall has been cast over their academic integrity. Non-academics might not understand how utterly devastating that is, but it explains The Team’s behavior both before and after Climategate. Too often academics are unable to separate their professional and personal selves. A blow to their professional identity, even the mere whisper that their research or ideas might wrong, threatens much more than a paycheck; it threatens their entire sense of who they are as individuals. I don’t condone this particular and peculiar side of the academic world, but I understand it and I can’t label it “criminal”.

February 2, 2010 6:18 am

“not many of the actions of Mann, Jones, et. al. are not really against the law”
Shoud be:
“the actions of Mann, Jones, et. al. are not really against the law”
Bleah! Clearly I need more caffeine.

February 2, 2010 6:29 am

The powers that be are looking for scapegoats now that the CAGW house of cards is in slow-mo fall. Mann, Jones et al will be amongst the first to go under the ‘cleansing knife’.
Can’t say I’ll lose any sleep over it!

February 2, 2010 6:55 am

Two options left off of the survey.
* Mann did things wrong, nothing will happen. That’s one small step for Mann, but one Giant Leap Backwards for Mankind.
* Mann did things wrong, but because he brought in research dollars, their position is, “You da Mann.”

Jimmy Haigh
February 2, 2010 8:13 am

I’m disappointed that there isn’t a picture of Mann hugging his bits of trees at the top of this post.

Brian G Valentine
February 2, 2010 9:09 am

I can see the interview with Mike Mann and his investigation committee now:
“Um, thank you, Doctor Mann, for binging in two and a half million in research grants last year and the year before”
[from special interest groups like WWF and the Coalition for a Clean Energy Future, but hey, money’s the same no matter where it’s from]
“we really appreciate it, now um, we’re going to investigate why, um, some obvious ‘special interests’ have unfairly targeted your outstanding work and upstanding character.
“We plan to issue a statement that will smear your detractors even more than you already have, do you have any more ammo for us to fire at these liars and obvious frauds?”

Tim Clark
February 2, 2010 9:57 am

Norfolk Police who interviewed me about FOI requests and my views on climate change.
Now why would they ask his views on climate change? IMHO, to disregard his concerns.

Steve Dallas
February 2, 2010 10:55 am

From yesterday’s PSU Student Newpaper, about the only US Media outlet covering Climategate.
We should know something soon.
Should be noted PSU’s Meterology Dept. has produce 1/4 of all US Meterologists including a number of “skeptics” including Joe Bastardi of Accu-Weather (and Accu-Weather founder Joel Meyers). Mann is not at the the top of the totem pole, or even close for that matter, I’m sure the Deans of Meteorlogy, Earth and Mineral Sciences, and Research are all very sensitive to what might happen to one of their most prestigeous Colleges if they totally white-wash this thing. On the other hand, a number of PSU Earth Scientists were in the IPCC Panel, so we’ll see.

Steve Dallas
February 2, 2010 10:57 am

Climate research grants are tiny fraction of PSU’s grant money. A drop in the bucket.

“DocMartyn (15:51:59) :
I would not write off Penn State just yet; they have a very good reputation in science.”
With all of that grant money in jeopardy? I’ll bet they vote friendly

Steve Dallas
February 2, 2010 11:07 am

To put it in perspective, PSU has 4 times as many students, and 30 times the endowment of East Anglica University. PSU spent $652 million on research in 2007.

Gail Combs
February 2, 2010 11:35 am

West Houston (15:36:16) :
Only 7 per cent believe that justice will be done. Alas, we are a cynical bunch!
No just a very realistic bunch.
Here is a current example of how a problem is twisted to the advantage of the guilty.
There were two US Congressional investigations into food poisoning lately The actual problem was the implementation of new international food regulations called HACCP in 1996. HACCP turns food safety testing over to the corporations and limits government inspectors to inspecting paperwork. Waxman’s new “food safety enhancement ” bill specifically states there will be no changes made to HACCP instead the government will regulate farmers and farms. This will put the local food sale from farmers, competing with the corporations, out of business.
I really doubt we will see any more justice in the case of Climategate than we did in the food safety fiasco. The situations are actually very similar. Use the media to scare the bejesus out of the public and then enact legislation (worldwide in both cases) that is profitable to the multinational corporations.
Nicole Johnson has written two great articles that document the food safety problem complete with extensive references. they are:
The Festering Fraud Behind Food Safety Reform: http://www.foodsafetynews.com/contributors/nicole-johnson/
History, HACCP and the Food Safety Con Job: http://www.opednews.com/articles/History-HACCP-and-the-Foo-by-Nicole-Johnson-090906-229.html

February 2, 2010 12:15 pm

Kay (05:29:28) :
@ Steve in SC (20:46:56) : Penn State had best put finger to the wind for a quick check.A whitewash will let the Mann dollars continue to flow. However, the political landscape is a changing and they may be playing fast and loose with their accreditation in about 4 years time.
Probably not even that long. Our Attorney General is a Republican…and he’s running for governor.

So you think that Mann should be judged on financial and political grounds not scientific/academic conduct.

Jean Parisot
February 2, 2010 1:28 pm

A whitewash investigation will not sit well with a Republican committee chairman when Congress flips this year – PSU better think ahead.

February 2, 2010 1:44 pm

This is why Penn State will never beat Ohio State in Football. They are gutless worms.
Numerous OSU professors have openly expressed doubts about manmade climate change. And concurrently, OSU has dominated Penn State on the gridiron year in and year out unseating them from the top of the National and Big Ten rankings on multiple occassions. Coincidence, I don’t think so.
Football is a man’s game. And it is not very manly to lie, exaggerate, and cheat to get your way. A man fights his battles face to face, and by the rules, and wins by being better. Penn State Alum Larry Johnson was fired from the Kansas City Chiefs this year for bashing his coach and team ON TWITTER! A fitting end to a career that couldn’t live up to its hype. Not too dissimilar to Mann’s current embarrassment.
Penn State clearly has systemic issues with opting for sniveling cowardice when integrity and manhood are in order. Whatever they decide in Mann’s case won’t matter. They serve their sentence in the record books of history, where their un-noteworthy absence from any significant athletic or academic achievements will not be doctored during peer-review…

John M
February 2, 2010 2:10 pm

Phil. (12:15:15) :

So you think that Mann should be judged on financial and political grounds not scientific/academic conduct.

That may very well be the only thing that saves him. He’s gotten oodles of “stimulus” money and the gov is still a mover and shaker in the donkey party.

February 2, 2010 4:04 pm

What a chicken **** investigation by penn state as far as iam concerned they are just as guilty.
REPLY: Let’s see what they have to say. -A

Indian Bones
February 2, 2010 4:32 pm

Christopher Booker’s revealing article not only points out that the UK Commission has misread its own Act – but that now it is obligated to go forward with legal prosecution. Unless it doesn’t. Which speaks volumes to the depth of corruption that prosecution would disclose.
“The real mystery therefore is how the Commission came to misread the very Act which brought it into being. Undoubtedly a successful prosecution involving such world-ranking scientists would be extraordinarily embarrassing, not just to the Government but to the entire global warming cause. So what has persuaded the Commission not to do its duty”
FOI is the peoples’ vehicle for redress of government – which the public pays taxes to. If FOI can willy nilly be brushed aside, it might as well be stricken from use. Which is a reason for people on this site and in the UK to hound their representatives to not let this transgression go un-prosecuted.

Steve in SC
February 2, 2010 6:54 pm

Phil. (12:15:15) :
So you think that Mann should be judged on financial and political grounds not scientific/academic conduct.

Actually, since the AGW thing is strictly political that is about the only way you’ll get him. Remember Al Capone and income tax evasion.
Of course had I been in charge he would have been tried and hanged already.

February 2, 2010 8:16 pm

REPLY: Let’s see what they have to say. -A
Most on here appear to have prejudged the issue and aren’t interested in doing so.
Indian Bones (16:32:22) :
Christopher Booker’s revealing article not only points out that the UK Commission has misread its own Act –

Actually it is Booker who has misread the act, why he didn’t get legal advice before writing that piece is a mystery.

February 3, 2010 4:41 am

Penn State University offers a fairly pricey online M.Ed in Earth Sciences (@$20k). This is geared at teachers and is teaches the usual AGW-alarmism.
Meanwhile, the unprestigious (YES, and Southern) Mississippi State University offers a similar MS in Geosciences online (through its geology department), much cheaper at @14k.
I think people ought to protest by saying they cannot abide by a PSU that stands by a lying climate scientist (cf, Mann’s testimony to the NAS in 2006). Instead, you will enroll at a more reputable place where such departmental tarnishing is not accepted-and enroll in MSU’s program.

February 3, 2010 7:27 am

This whole affair is becoming more profoundly disturbing as it moves outward from ground zero.
I was never an AGW believer and I have a fair degree of cynicism about existing power structures everywhere. However, it is shocking that this obvious corruption in ‘Climate Science’ (it ain’t science) is being systematically covered up by just about every group that guards the gates.
Note that although it is entirely possible that AGW is happening to a tiny extent (maybe even measurable), it is well beyond any reasonable expectation that it will have a catastrophic effect. For this to be worth altering the world economy it must be imminent and Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) about which we can effectively do something. Frankly, I don’t believe the evidence comes even close to supporting the notion that anything out of the ordinary is happening with Climate at all.
This is remeniscent of the U.S. Presidential election where a near trillion dollar boondoggle was on the horizon and even though people like me *knew* they were heading for a financial meltdown (I am a Canadian), apparently it was a complete unknown for all the major Candidates until just after the election. Please. Who can believe that a Trillion dollar gap existed anywhere and was completely off the radar? Only the purely innumerate (addmitedly a frightening large percentage of the population) could think that a million times a million dollars was able to hide itself like that. It was, BTW, mentioned in the election, just not by the people to whom the news establishment was pointing your attention.
I only have a B.Sc., but the ‘science’ as practised by the ‘hockey team’ is well below my pay grade. I would have known it was nonsense from the science I learned in High School. In fact, I expect it would take only a week or two to ‘skill up’ someone of slightly above average intelligence so that they could see for themselves that CAGW is nonsense.
The noise over Climategate has been characterized by the ‘climateers’ as an ‘attack on Science’. Although the argument is spurious, it does well to take a long look at the scientific establishment. The CAGW nonsense has been beneath contempt all along. What reasonable person, scientist or not, believes this silly notion? How on earth could the scientific establishment sweep this under the carpet for so long and then participate in the cover-up? It is just shameful and more than a little scary.
The burden of proof for the truly extraordinary claim that we must alter the world economy to stave off the end of the world lies squarely with the camp arguing that claim. It is not up to me to prove that Russell’s teapot is not hiding out there somewhere. It sure is not up to me to ‘prove’ it will not end the world. They keep tossing the ball back saying that skeptics have to somehow prove that it is *not* CO2. In fact, the preponderence of evidence actually does falsify the CO2 theory. However, it is not our argument to break. It is their argument to make.
They must *PROVE* (to the point that we would bet trillions of dollars) that:
1) A catastrophe is coming.
2) We can do something about it at a cost that is lower than living with the catastrophe.
3) That CO2 is the culprit and reducing it is the answer.
If Cap and Trade legislation goes into effect we will have essentially allocated a Trillion dollars or more to reducing CO2. To the extent that we have any evidence, we would be better off spending that money on *producing* CO2. There are surely better ways to spend that money. Even though I am a socialist, though, I would say that it is not their money to spend. I do not want to pay a tax designed to starve plant life. I want to spend it on my kids.
I have looked and looked and looked for the allegedly overwhelming evidence of CAGW. It is not out there. That is not surprising, because AGW of the catastrophic flavor is not in evidence. What evidence seems trustworthy falsifies nearly every falsifiable fact upon which CAGW either depends or predicts (hence depends upon to be a good model).
I should not have to look for the ‘overwhelming evidence’ for this ‘settled science’. It should be easy to find. It is not easy. What evidence you can pry out of the system or exists in older publications either flatly contradicts CAGW or is tainted in some way. I invite anyone who has a little math and science to do their own digging. I, for instance, got the temperature values for my local area in Ontario going back a hundred years or so and plotted the graph and did the stats. A meaningless ‘R^2’ value and a nearly plumb horizontal line. If there is a trend toward warming in my locality it is not evidenced by the data we have.
The climateers keep using ‘ad hominem’ attacks and chant about ‘peer review’ within the narrow confines that they actually control. They keep referring to ‘overwhelming evidence’ as if only a moron could dispute their claims, but when pressed, they keep pointing to the same tired spurious arguments and what we now have some proof is data that is actually rather limited, tainted or categorically false (like, just made up or something).
If you throw out the hockey team, the IPCC report saying that glaciers are going to disappear magically in a couple of decades and the most grotesquely compromised data sets, what do you have left? If the evidence is ‘overwhelming’ they should be easily able to point to *TONS* of underlying data, uninvolved experts who have actually looked at this matter and agree with them and papers that are not the subject of some dispute right now. If they could do that, they would. They have not because they cannot. When you remove their compromised stuff, all you have left is stuff that either says nothing at all or falsifies their claims.
I do not believe there is an informed scientific consensus that we should alter the world economy to protect us from CAGW. I would bet against it. It is clear that the people who ostensibly speak for most major scientific bodies have bought into this for one reason or another, but I don’t think they speak for their members. They can’t possibly speak for their members who are informed. However, even if there were a consensus, it would not be scientific proof.
Although this is not an attack on ‘small s’ science it is becoming an attack on ‘large S’ Science by virtue of the fact that the incumbent establishment is participating in the cover-up either by action or inaction. The gatekeepers of science are interfering with its pursuit.
Honestly. On Wikipedia they are still discussing what title will replace ‘Climatic Research Unit hacking incident’. Climategate (which redirects there) is not on the table as far as the WP gatekeepers are concerned. It makes me think of Orwell. ‘Climategate’ or any other probable title that a normal person would use for this item, essentially redirects you to ‘Crimethink’.
It offends me that slightly nutty factions both sides of this debate have decided that this is polarized along ‘right’/’left’ ‘liberal’/’conservative’ lines. Putting aside the fact that it is a false dichotomy anyway, I happen to identify with the ‘left’ end of the spectrum. I come from a labor union background originally. I am decidely left of center. They say that ‘politics makes strange bedfellows’ and it is true in this case. It bugs me that I have to throw in with people with whom I have rather sharp social and political differences. However, I think it behooves anyone who truly cares about the world they are leaving their chilrden to join forces when they stand together on an issue this important.
Finally, apropos of the original topic of this article, the fact that they have not asked serious principals from the (essentially) injured side of this matter is shocking, but quite in keeping with the rest of this increasingly disturbing matter. I would like to think that ‘the truth will out’, but as I said on WP before I gave up, I am expecting this will take months or years to finally be put right.
I apologize for the long entry re-iterating things said elsewhere. I had to get it off my chest! Those of you fighting the good fight here have my sincerest thanks.

Steve Dallas
February 3, 2010 8:16 am

How soon they forget.
2008 PSU 13, OSU 6
Ohio State does serve a purpose in the Big 10, I can get my kids coloring books from OSU’s library via inter-library loan. I have also noticed the OSU undergrads can’t color inside the lines very well and tend to drool on the pages.
This is why Penn State will never beat Ohio State in Football. They are gutless worms.

February 3, 2010 12:19 pm

@ DeepN – Your summary is not overlong, nor is it redundant in this or any other context. In fact, it is quite cogently written, and in my opinion deserving of broader readership. Would you consider submitting such content to the quite informal weekly online “magazine” The Libertarian Enterprise (at http://www.ncc-1776.org/ )?
The editor is Ken Holder, and his e-mail address is available on the publication’s Web site.
Thank you.

Roger Knights
February 3, 2010 10:16 pm

Here is Steve McIntyre’s comment on the Penn State findings:

February 5, 2010 6:40 am

Tucci — Thanks for the kind words. That comment was (uncharacteristically for me) typed in extemporaneously. On re-reading the comment, I notice that as a result it has a surprising number of errors. I will attempt to clean up and send along as you have suggested. The more the word gets out there, the better, it seems to me.

February 5, 2010 7:08 am

I read Steve’s commentary. As expected, Penn State just went into damage control mode with a standard whitewash. Hopefully someone in that state will ask their State legislators to investigate the investigation.
It is telling that everyone on the AGW side and/or their silent co-conspirators at their institutions feels the need to steer way clear from the real people bringing up the real issues. It means they must surely know that the truth is dangerous to them.
As strange as it may seem, I have a little bit of faith in the courts. To the extent that people can bring lawsuits to force further information and to recover public monies, I think there is a chance that at least lower courts may be persuaded to rule in favor of a plaintiff. I also have a little bit of faith that recovery of money might be done via ‘whistle-blower’ legislation. Even if overturned in higher courts, a clear message would be in the public record.
It would appear that Penn State has been egregiously malfeasant in their duty of care to properly investigate this matter. That indicates to me that they ‘knew or should have known’ what was going on. To the extent that they did and to the extent that public money was given to the University to conduct bogus research, I think that the public has a right to demand their money back with punitive damages to prevent further abuses of the system.

Fran Manns
February 11, 2010 1:54 am

Climategate Forecast…
“What is the current scientific consensus on the conclusions reached by Drs. Mann, Bradley and Hughes? [Referring to the hockey stick propagated in UN IPCC 2001 by Michael Mann and debunked by McIntyre and McKitrick in 2003.]
Ans: Based on the literature we have reviewed, there is no overarching consensus on MBH98/99. As analyzed in our social network, there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis. However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.”
AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE ‘HOCKEY STICK’ GLOBAL CLIMATE RECONSTRUCTION, also known as The Wegman report was authored by Edward J. Wegman, George Mason University, David W. Scott, Rice University, and Yasmin H. Said, The Johns Hopkins University with the contributions of John T. Rigsby, III, Naval Surface Warfare Center, and Denise M. Reeves, MITRE Corporation.

Fran Manns
February 11, 2010 2:05 am

Slightly off topic – There are hockey sticks peppered through all of Ohio State’s Lonnie Thomnpson’s ice core papers. Ice is an open system. No amount of criticism (Jawarowski) of the use of fluid inclusions from ice core ever had any impact on Ohio State or the revered glaciologist, or the ‘science’ of fluid inclusion from ice. The transience of light isotopes and the complex non-equilibrium transition from snow to firn to ice assures that the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age are not documented. Calibrating the isotopes from the surface temperatures backward yields a hockey stick every time.

Fran Manns
February 11, 2010 2:08 am

I guess Joe Pa’s football revenue will have to support the meteorology program too.

February 11, 2010 9:49 pm

Michael Mann cleared of all charges.
Are we surprised?
REPLY: No, there’s an additional investigation at the University plus a new Federal investigation that is being considered. – A

%d bloggers like this: