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.
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.
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.
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:
http://blogs.abc.net.au/victoria/melbourne_mornings/index.html
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:
http://australianconservative.com/2009/11/cru-emails-insignificant-says-abcs-faine/
Hopefully some of these folks also following ABC ‘Lateline’ coverage:
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s2807247.htm
For a left-leaning (reputably) pro-Labor and Government-run media, the ABC is not doing too badly afterall.
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.
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!
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.
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.
They interview John Costella, or at least look at his analysis?
OT:
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.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8491154.stm
He forgot to mention that other certainty – the existence of widespread fraud.
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.
Incompetence is not an excuse.
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.
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.
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.
John
“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.
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.
“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.
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.
http://www.asrc.albany.edu/people/faculty/wang/wang.html
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.
Interesting theory from Dr Timothy Ball
Climategate became necessary to achieve the political objective
Climategate Necessary to Cover Incorrect Climate Basics of IPCC
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/19548
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.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/76573ac6-0f69-11df-a450-00144feabdc0.html
“I hope the inquiry asks the tough questions.”
I hope that Obama is gonna give me that Unicorn he promised.
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.
Mike Mann should get 20 whack’s with a hockey stick!
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.
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.