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.
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
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-emails-climate-jones-chinese
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
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/dispute-weather-fraud
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
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/climate-emails-sceptics
“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”.
Dave N:
No, they didn’t. (No surprise there.)
Penn State Gate anyone?
Was anyone really expecting anything other than a whitewash?
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.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7113552/Climategate-confusion-over-the-law-in-email-case.html
I’ve been waiting for some development of this story but haven’t as yet seen any.
There’s a loose end for a kittenish journalist to tug at.
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.
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.
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.
When the Republicans regain a majority on the Committees, Mann will be toast.
@ur momisugly 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.
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?
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”.
“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.
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!
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.”
I’m disappointed that there isn’t a picture of Mann hugging his bits of trees at the top of this post.
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?”
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.
From yesterday’s PSU Student Newpaper, about the only US Media outlet covering Climategate.
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2010/02/01/mann_inquiry_concludes_board_t.aspx
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.
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
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.
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/
and
History, HACCP and the Food Safety Con Job: http://www.opednews.com/articles/History-HACCP-and-the-Foo-by-Nicole-Johnson-090906-229.html
Kay (05:29:28) :
@ur momisugly 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.
A whitewash investigation will not sit well with a Republican committee chairman when Congress flips this year – PSU better think ahead.