I don’t have a lot to say about this, but I would suggest reading the comments over at the Climate Audit thread on the subject.
The acount of Richard Lindzen’s testimony in the report is interesting.
~ charles the moderator
UPDATE: Dr. Mann responds to the news in a video interview below.
H/t to Luboš Motl
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Penn State, you failed.
Michael Mann’s problem is now YOUR problem.
I feel bad for all holders of any science degree from Penn State – such degrees have now been depreciated.
Best of luck with the PA legislature.
Penn State defines Research Misconduct as:
(1) fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or other practices that seriously deviate from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities;
Notice it states “academic community” as a whole. It doesn’t use the term “specific field.”
Yet they never justify comparing Mann’s practices to other practices within his field instead of Mann’s practices to other practices within the academic community as a whole.
I hope this committee legally gets called on their blatant divergence from procedure.
OK, I’ve got to give you this, from the marvelous ‘n’ at a general interest blog:
remarkable, Kim, they cherry picked the sample of emails, in order to show there was no cherry picking involved, and “now for my next trick”.
==================
“blue ribon panel”
OJ was found not guilty and his “panel of jurors” earned blue ribbon label.
“criminal hack”
How does he know? Whether it was hack or leak hasn’t been proven
“Fossil fuel funded”
Another strawman.
I can follow his fortran and saw what he modified. “Fudging data” it was done using the Fortran program.
Follow the money. This whitewash is done to preserve the funding at PSU. The “peers” have a vested interest in not tarnishing the name of the school.
CPA’s laugh at calling this exam independent.
You know, when I was an M.Sc. student in biology back in the 1980’s, I used to go up to the department library and read through the weekly issues of Science and Nature. I was struck by the number of high flying researchers, particularly those with large amounts of funding, that kept getting nailed for fraudulent medical research. These people were investigated by independent committees that had no ties to the institutions where the research was being conducted. Why can’t we have that sort of thing here?
I mean, Mx2 turned the data upside down, for crying out loud! Children are more sophisticated than that.
By the way, anything new from the coppers on those “stolen emails” or did I miss that?
Mike ‘Nature Trick’ Mann…
….’has done his best to clarify the uncertainties’, or so he claimed to the BBC….
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/6/24/bad-boys-exaggerated-my-graph-and-ran-away.html
Shame the BBC took the opportunity to splice together proxy and instrument records (always best to repeat the big lies), and cite Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1999 (IPCC 2001).
…such high standards at Penn.
The Emperor has no clothes. Now, all his courtiers are undressing in an insane attempt to cover his shame. How amusing!
On January 12,2010, the Inquiry Committee (Foley, Yekel, Scaroni) and Dr. Brune met
with Dr. Mann. Dr. Mann was asked to address the four allegations leveled against him
and to provide answers to the fifteen additional questions that the Inquiry Committee had
compiled. In an interview lasting nearly two hours, Dr. Mann addressed each of the
questions and follow-up questions. A recording was made of the interview and was later
transcribed. The Inquiry Committee members asked occasional follow-up questions.
He denied, denied, denied . . . . is that the behaviour of a denier? : )
Does anyone know if the 2 hr Mann questioning transcript was made available online?
John
Come on folks, are you really surprised that “frat boys” all stick together? My dad would say “One lies and the other swears by it”. But don’t worry, these type of people get it in the end. Their smugness prevents them from much needed corrective action. Look at OJ for example.
Kim,
I was quite surprised to learn that my Fortran 77 code isn’t portable… And all this time I thought I was moving my code back and forth between Dos(/Windows) and Linux (and curiously the same code I used under SunOS), and using it on all systems…
I guess that I was mistaken in thinking that I had a functioning G77 for Dos…
And the committee’s comment about Excel spreadsheets…what a hoot. Clearly they are people who have limited experience in data analysis…
Follow the stimulus money.
Don’t have a lot of time to analyze this but the first thing that stood out was the implied permission to share in press work with a third party. In the journals where my colleagues and I publish, this is NOT standard practice. Perhaps we’re not such a tight group.
Also, a different computer producing different results with his program? It’s MATH! That’s what computers do. Was the forcing (fudge) factor his computer’s motherboard serial number?
To Chas the Physicist
It is really surprising statement. I do all my modeling in FORTRAN and the computation accuracy is one of the issues that we deal for our particular applications. The physical and numerical models are the main sources of inaccuracy followed by the lack or inaccuracy of the input physical data (like material properties). I have never noticed accuracy dependence on the type of platform; however, I ran same codes on various platforms. Seems like either lie or incompetence.
I feel bad for all holders of any science degree from Penn State – such degrees have now been depreciated.
We never had these problems when Dr. Dutton was in charge of the College. Dr. Barron had potential, but the huge vacuum that was left in ESSC combined with the belief that I don’t think his attention was ever 100% on the College really hurt EMS. Don’t get me started on Easterling.
There appears to be a misunderstanding here of how seriously Penn State must take allegations of research misconduct. Between 2006 and 2009, when Mann joined the PSU faculty, PSU earned $2.8 billion in research grants. Over that same period, Mann brought in $1.8 million. That’s 0.06% of the total research grants. Does anyone here seriously believe that PSU would risk the other 99.94% of research grants to protect ANY single researcher, no matter how respectable they’re perceived to be?
PSU is a tier-one research university. That means that their reputation is everything, and if they hadn’t been completely certain that Mann’s behavior was within acceptable norms for his field, he would have been tossed to the wolves to protect the university.
I recommend the following for a longer discussion of just how seriously any university takes allegations of research misconduct and why it wouldn’t make sense for PSU to conduct a whitewash on behalf of Mann: http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2010/02/15/psu-cover-up-extremely-unlikely/
Brian Angliss,
After waiting 2 1/2 months to finally receive A.W. Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion, from Amazon, I can state that it was well worth the wait.
Rather than making vague assumptions, I really recommend the book to you. It will open your eyes. If there are any doubts regarding the question of Michael Mann’s deliberate scientific misconduct, those doubts will be laid to rest.
You also seem to have a somewhat limited, naive view of the situation. It is not the amount of the grant money that is at risk. Rather, it is the system — the gravy train that would be put at great risk by finding Mann guilty of misconduct. The taxpaying public would demand much closer scrutiny of the billions in federal grants handed out every year. And the climate scare industry can not withstand such scrutiny. Thus, the whitewash.
Sorry, Smokey, but the “gravy train” argument doesn’t make sense either. Annually, all climate research amounts to about $3.8 billion globally, most of which is in the US and is invested in remote-sensing satellites. In contrast, fossil fuel-related industries make up a minimum of 15% of the entire global economy, or a minimum of $9 trillion (that’s $9000 billion for anyone not familiar with the units). If scientists in general were interested only in money, then why wouldn’t the work in fossil fuel-related industries instead of science, where there’s thousands of times more money available?
http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2010/05/05/industry-scientists-climate-profits/
Scientists as a rule are really smart people that could do almost anything with their intellect that they wanted, and yet they go into fields that don’t pay well. Clearly they must be motivated by something other than the “gravy train.”
To Brian Angliss:
Let’s suppose for the sake of the argument that the major fraction of the PSU funding is received for the research similar to M2 research, i.e. not honest by a layman standards. Then the university will defend to the end one specific researcher in order to avoid precedent opening the rest of the research funding to the investigations. Another thought: Promotion and Tenure requirements are so stringent that only extraordinary and geniuses can meet them. Thus, just here in the US we have many thousands of geniuses… But of course, this is nonsense. However, those Profs either truly believe that they are extraordinary able or pretend and lie. Do you think that such people would have a hesitation and second thought of validity of their science and even remote desire to determine true value of their research? Perhaps MM case is not just a particular researcher mishap but rather a demonstration of the deep sickness of academia and the system that funds it.
Walt The Physicist says:
As do I… Spreadsheets are real dogs, when your data stack gets large (e.g. the 1961-1990 NCDC US set is about 8 or 9 GB, decompressed — for my data-mining, I can rip through it in a few minutes).
Certainly not at any level that would matter… And if it is critical (e.g. computational round-offs), you use real*8. Not that any of the data justifies that sort of resolution.
Or both. With a heaping pile of arrogance, hoping that no-one will notice the flaws in the statement.
More evidence that The Auditor did the math and found out Mann was right all along.
Brian Angliss,
Your linked source [Scholars & Rogues] appears to be as heavily biased as Media Matters. They interviewed many university types who all gave Mann a free pass — while not even picking up the phone and calling Steve McIntyre.
Also, you stated that Mann snared $1.8 million for the university, when your source says: Mann has brought in a total of $4.2 million since he joined PSU in 2006. Other than that, it appears that you got all your talking points from that highly questionable and certainly biased link, which states:
Again, why was McIntyre not asked to respond to that self-serving load of hogwash? And as we know, RealClimate is an incredible echo chamber of true believers.
Your second posted link is even more ludicrous, comparing energy companies’ total earned income with federal handouts for “climate disruption.” [<– no kidding, that's the term she used.] Biased, much? That is an apples and oranges comparison if there ever was one.
For a much needed reality check, read the Penn State Report and the Climate Audit thread, both linked at the top of this page. Unless, of course, you don't want both sides of the story. In that case, stick with the Scholars & Rogues propaganda.
So, Smokey, you’re saying that a university vice provost and the heads of several different academic research groups aren’t experts on how critical a university’s reputation is, but McIntyre is an expert on that particular subject?
Neither post addresses any of the points of science, just the secondary arguments like those you’re making – would a university whitewash to protect itself, and is grant money a sufficient motivator for scientists. Answering those two questions didn’t need input from McIntyre, as he’s not an expert on either subject so far as I’m aware.
You misread the numbers, BTW – the $4.2 million applies to grants that are spread out over a period that includes 2010 through 2014, while the $1.8 million applies to what was given to PSU between 2006 and 2009.
Walt – First, I didn’t say “geniuses,” only “really smart.” Second, look at the annual report for PSU research here: http://www.research.psu.edu/about/annrep09.pdf The single largest grant source was the Deparment of Defense, which was 23% of all funding, and all that money went into applied research and electro-optics. Another 14% of research money was from Health and Human Services. You’re willing to accept that PSU would risk their DoD and medical research funds on behalf of Mann?
Let’s look at the numbers a different way. 9.5% of all the research money went into the college of Earth and Mineral Sciences, where Mann is a member of the faculty. Compare that to 24% for defense-related (not all DoD funded), 13.5% into Engineering, 12.7% into Agricultural Sciences, 12% into the college of Medicine. Do you think that PSU’s engineering, medicine, agriculture, and defense-related schools (who represented 62% of research expenditures in 2009) and labs would sit on their hands and let the university screw them over by hosing PSU’s reputation?
Penn State also was third in the country for total industry research grants in 2009. The federal government may not give a damn about their reputation, but companies sure do, and if PSU looked like they were flushing their reputation down the toilet to protect Mann, companies would stop bringing research money to the university. There’s no reason for Penn State to risk that.
My complaint to a self regulating “professional” association about a member a few years ago was handled almost identically.
1. Boil it down to four complaints.
2. Throw out the three most egregious, provable offenses.
3. Appear to ponder long and hard about the least provable and egregious offense.
4. Find the accused “not guilty”.
The process cannot involve cross examination and must rely heavily on the verbal testimony of the member of the association to determine culpability.
ie Examiner: “Did you commit the offense?”
Offender: “No.”
Examiner: “OK, not guilty.”
What a waste of time.
At least Lindzen got to verbalize his incredulity.
Is it standard procedure for the entire “investigating committee” to be “unavailable” for the expert witness testimony? There appear to be five members of the investigating committee, but for each of the outside expert witnesses, only the facilitator was present for the questioning, even though the scheduled dates were posted. If this is a measure of how seriously they took the issues involved, why should we be surprised at the outcome?
Much to my shock and disgust, it seems climate science isn’t the only science where politics is influencing decisions of both individuals and professional groups. The following story was in the news yesterday: Peer-Reviewed Science is Politically-Revised
http://townhall.com/columnists/JaniceShawCrouse/2010/06/30/peer-reviewed_science_is_politically-revised
Brian Angliss,
Let me put this investigation whitewash in a context that is understandable. Assume for a moment that Mann got his just desserts:
Now millions of hard-bitten taxpayers demand that Penn State and Michael Mann refund all climate related grants back to the U.S. Treasury. Furthermore, the whole climate scam would be understood by a public that is weary of the rampant corruption they see everywhere. By putting a spotlight on one of the perps, the public would have another Bernie Madoff to go after, and politicians fearing for their jobs would jump in front of that parade with alacrity.
See? That’s what could easily happen. Even Nature has been forced to admit that Mann’s Hokey Stick chart was debunked.
Now do you understand why Penn State whitewashed Mann? ☹ They really didn’t have a choice, so they arranged an internal investigation along the lines of the CRU investigation. Both were shams.
Next, I did not misread the numbers as you state; you chose to use an artificially low number for a contractual payoff of $4.2 million, because that made the ratio you were trying to construct more lopsided. In fact, Mann was the rainmaker who generated millions for the university. Even your ridiculously biased blog Scholars & Rogues noted the $4.2 million. The money has been agreed to by all parties. You simply parsed the time frame.
Also, I dispute your denigrating of Steve McIntyre, who is more up to speed on climatology than Michael Mann is. McIntyre forced Nature to report that Mann’s work was debunked. McIntyre reverse engineered Mann’s hokey stick chart and showed the world that it was bunk. McIntyre forced the UN/IPCC to stop using Mann’s Hockey Stick chart in its Assessment Reports. Now they can only use pale imitations — which are still fraudulent, but charts are easy to construct, while reverse engineering the secret methodologies used is time consuming and difficult.
Steve McIntyre has run rings around Michael Mann, and everyone knows it. That’s why they shy away from interviewing McIntyre. It is too dangerous to those with a climate alarmist agenda to ask him questions. He knows too much.
Finally, your understanding of human nature appears to be deficient. It doesn’t take more than one individual in the right position to turn a university department or a government bureaucracy like NASA into an organization advocating CAGW — and every employee understands that their continued pay raises and job security depend on their not rocking the boat. So all the talk about how ‘seriously’ the university takes its investigation is just so much hogwash. They are doing what is in their best interest, and that includes whitewashing scientific misconduct by only calling friendly witnesses and restricting the investigation to a few carefully crafted questions.
Read The Hockey Stick Illusion by A.W. Montford. It will force you to accept the conclusion, laid out in detailed chapter and verse, that Michael Mann and others engaged in scientific misconduct for money and status.