WUWT reader W. Earl Allen attended this talk and provided notes of his observations. First the talk summary:
The seminar is a Chemical Science Division seminar entitled “Climategate, Michael Mann, and Penn State’s investigation”:
*********************************************************************
Please note: this special seminar will precede the usual CSD seminar. There will be a 15 minute break in between the two.
*********************************************************************
The release of emails purloined from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University inflamed the passion and politics that surround climate science. As one of the climate scientists whose emails were released, Professor Michael Mann, who I recruited to Penn State, became a focal point of this passion in the United States.
Intense pressure was put on Penn State to investigate Professor Mann, initiating a process that led to his exoneration eight months later. As Professor Mann’s department head, I was a participant in Penn State’s investigative process. At David Fahey’s request, I will tell what I can about Climategate, Michael Mann, and Penn State’s investigation.
W. Earl Allen writes of the event a few hours later:
The security gauntlet at a supposedly open scientific research center was daunting, surprising, and most unwelcome. Fortunately, I came about a half hour early so as to be there early enough to set up for recording, which turned out to be disallowed, so I was happy that I had time to run the gauntlet, which was pretty much exactly equivalent to the security imposed by the TSA. I’ve worked at federal facilities before, and this was far and away the most intrusive and unwelcome security I have ever experienced.
One possibly irrelevant note: the NOAA research center is named for former congressperson from Boulder, David Skaggs, who I ran against in 1996 as a Libertarian. On the way in, someone questioned the tastefulness of naming such a place for a still-living person. But I guess anyone who diverted so much Federal money to Boulder deserves his name on the building.
An overview: The room was packed SRO, which Brune appeared to be surprised about, since he expected a very small seminar with only a few interested scientists. Brune opened with a backgrounder about the history of Penn State and his department within Penn State. He noted that Pennsylvania was a coal-mining state. He described hiring Michael Mann 6 years ago. Brune was very annoyed to get a lot of offensive emails and phone calls about Michael Mann when Climategate revealed Mann to be one of the primary foci of the “hacked” emails.
Brune spent several minutes ruminating about the possible problems of using email for a “conversation”. I’m not sure this is just the opinion of someone brought up in the landline phone age or someone worried about revealing the internal “sausage” of science in the making. One of the questioners asked whether or not all emails between scientists should be encrypted. Brune thought that was a very good question, but didn’t necessarily agree that all emails should be encrypted.
Like all good academic bureaucrats, when faced with a messy political problem, Brune turned to “the process”, which at Penn State has a name: RA-10. He said that he decided to use that process to handle the problem. He noted that there was no *internal* request for inquiry from within Penn State itself, so they had to “construct” questions to put to Mann from inquiries from outside the University. He seemed a bit huffy that he had to deal with “outside” inquirers, as if the only “real” problems would surface from within Penn State itself, and any controversy imposed from outside was somehow just an annoyance. {/editorial on} Talk about Ivory Towers. Reminds me of the Falwlty ones. {/editorial off}
The first step was an Administrative Inquiry, led by Bill Easterling, the Dean. Brune himself, being department chair, and the guy who hired Mann, was considered only a “consultant” to this initial Administrative Inquiry. They constructed four questions for this inquiry, which they put to Mann himself. He was exonerated regarding the first three (sorry I didn’t get the details of those questions, but since Lindzen objected to Mann’s exoneration on those first three, they must be available somewhere). The only remaining question was whether Mann had somehow played fast and loose with a paper out for review in preprint, which seemed to me to be an entirely irrelevant question.
Brune emphasized that Mann was a great student of the Philosophy of Science, and that he was “very much the scientist.”
The second stage of RA-10, called an “Investigative Committee”, which included Will Castleman and token “denier”, Richard Lindzen, got to look at only the fourth question. Lindzen was nonplussed to note that the first three questions had been deemed non-questions, and was ignored subsequently. Brune made an interesting remark to a questioner about Richard Lindzen, asking the questioner, “Do you know Richard Lindzen?” The questioner said he didn’t. Brune said that “Richard Lindzen can stand for any number of people.” I took that to mean that he could stand for just about all the deniers “out there.” But I may have misunderstood Brune.
Brune emphasized that “in summary,” nothing was found against Michael Mann, and that the whole inquiry process wasted hundreds of hours of very productive academic time.
In closing his lecture, Brune noted that climate is not just an extension of the weather, and that people like Joe Bastardi, who insist on this point, have cut all ties with Penn State and excoriated Mann and Penn State for their bad behavior. Brune appeared to carry it as a badge of honor that Bastardi no longer supports Penn State. When someone asked whether donations to Penn State had dropped off because of the Mann inquiry, Brune said he wasn’t aware of any such decrease.
I enjoyed hearing Brune emphasize that scientists *should* be skeptics, and that they should never take anything on faith, since to do so would be “religion.” I wish some of his colleagues would take that admonition to heart.
Brune ruminated on the necessity for publicizing all code, noting that 10 years ago, this wouldn’t have been good practice, nor necessary. He said that it appears that the new standard in research is to reveal all your data for replication, and that code probably should also be revealed, although he waffled a bit on that one.
Brune agonized about the “politicized environment” that produced the whole controversy around Michael Mann, and then opened the floor for questions.
None of bouldersolar’s questions got asked. He appears to have gotten them from Steve McIntyre’s site, so I’ll let him post them here if he wishes. I got to ask one question: Since so much of science now relies on computer codes, isn’t the whole project of modeling a hypercomplex non-linear chaotic system in an attempt to make psychic prognostications 50 or 100 years out a bit hubristic? Brune’s answer was that I should take his course in climatology once it comes online. I said I would love to do so. There was a bit of a titter as I asked the question, but not much of a one for that answer.
I got to “dialog” with a “dynamics” modeler after the session who explained that there’s a difference between engineers like McIntyre and “scientists” doing modeling and other scientific work. Science is a lot less exact, while engineers expect perfection. I countered by asking him to state exactly what the measured human contribution to the current CO2 concentration was. He rambled on about how this can be done with isotopes. I said yes, that is one way. Tell me what the measured percentage is. He had no answer. I asked him about the 50X sink of CO2 in the oceans, and he said that had already been covered, and by implication, dismissed.
I left the room with the impression that nobody had asked the “elephant” question. Had the money that Mann brought to Penn State from Federal sources caused him to bend his research to fit the requirements of his Federal funders? To ask such a question on the grounds of a Federal research facility might have been a bit too brash.
= = =
Beth Cooper,
Didn’t Prof Tim Ball use something like that to poke at a rattlesnake?
John
“He (Brune) said that it appears that the new standard in research is to reveal all your data for replication, …”
Really? Since when did they add that silly ‘need for replication’ into the scientific method, that must be a new thing that will never catch on….
/sarc
Did they make you place your personal belongings and make you walk through the metal detector, only to then allow you to drive your unsearched car onto the campus?
Except that being wrong on climate IS a massive problem.
The proposed redirection of $1,900,000,000,000,000 is bad stewardship, burying massive hard earned resources into the worst benefit/cost scheme of all major global projects proposed. It will directly bankrupt our economies that are already struggling.
It will starve funds from essential humanitarian needs, causing malnutrition death to millions of children who would otherwise be cared for. See the Copenhagen Consensus 2008. Global warming alarmism misdirects attention from the critical issue of “peak oil” and rapidly declining net oil exports, and the urgent need to rapidly develop alternative fuels asap.
Lets get back to common sense, restore the integrity of science, practice good stewardship, and have compassion on the poor,
There is a new discipline for software development called Software Engineering. It’s an attempt to apply engineering principles to the process of designing, coding and testing software. The modelers could learn a lot from the software engineers, but I suspect that this would expose the entire climate modeling cabal as a bunch of frauds.
Famously, sepulchers get whitewashed.
Regarding CA’s post on the Brune seminar, CA commenter ‘Dave Bufalo, P.E.’ (@ur momisugly Oct 5, 2011 at 9:49 PM) graciously gave his views on the seminar based on his attendance. Thanks ‘Dave Bufalo, P.E.’.
In his CA comment Dave Bufalo (P.E.) wrote, “Bruen [Brune] went on to say that Mann is now on sabatical doing research into how to do climate research communications better.”
Question for any long timers in the formal academic environment – What significance, if any, is there to the suggestion by Brune that Mann is on sabbatical for climate science communication research? Is that an academic code for being placed in hiatus pending some outcome of some other independent ongoing activity?
Note: I also posted the above question at CA on the thread about Brune.
John
[..]noting that 10 years ago, this wouldn’t have been good practice, nor necessary.
That gentleman can speak only for the researchers he recruits. AFAIK astronomers use publicly available repositories for their data reduction software long time ago. I checked this myself when working as an engineer for a telescope facility in Europe, more than two decades ago. Also, for the observational data itself, the facility or the site (i.e. the telescope or whatever, usually financed with public funds) where the researchers collects the data give the researchers a window of only 6 months to keep the data private. After that period the data itself has to be dumped in a public repository. Sigh!
The inquiry should have been ..
Are you Michael Mann?
Are these your emails?
Did you say delete in this one?
Did you say ignore the FOIR in this one?
Did you say “I will destroy the data rather than share”?
Can you explain ‘Hide The Decline”?
etc.
Scientist my eye!
Very nicely done; many thanks. One sentence grabbed my attention: ” Science is a lot less exact, while engineers expect perfection. ”
Total ignorance. Engineers just don’t expect anything they build to fail under normal conditions because safety factors of 4:1 or 10:1 cover the inexactitude of conditions, materials, and methods. Where Science is inexact, it’s supposed to give us an estimate of how inexact it might be. The absence of that estimate seems to be a feature of Climate “Science.”
Elmer! That was not fair! There wasn’t a “no liquids” warning before that and I think I lost a keyboard.
“Brune emphasized that Mann was a great student of the Philosophy of Science, and that he was “very much the scientist.” “
I just lost my lunch…..
Earl,
Thanks for attending. CU, with it’s numerous associations with climate change, is kind of the “belly of the beast”, isn’t it? Kudos for running the security gauntlet and stepping up to the microphone.
I believe there were four allegations against Mann. To address them, the inquiry committee was allowed 15 questions with follow-ups. I don’t know if the transcript for the hearing is available, but here is a summary of the allegations and the committee’s decisions:
Translation: You’re much too stupid to know what I know, so you should take a course in remedial math.
From the RA-10 Final Investigation Report:
There were plenty of complaints and demands for inquiries from alumni. Alumni are crucial to funding, so one might ask what he meant by “no internal requests”!
“I got to ask one question: Since so much of science now relies on computer codes, isn’t the whole project of modeling a hypercomplex non-linear chaotic system in an attempt to make psychic prognostications 50 or 100 years out a bit hubristic? ”
Huh? Not to be critical but the investigation found that Mann played no role in the destruction of mails. I wish you would have taken your time to ask how that finding squared with Wahls statements
Science is a lot less exact, while engineers expect perfection.
Hmm. In my experience scientists need exactitude while engineers are comfortable with estimates bounded by error quantification.
@Mike Bromley the Canucklehead
“Perhaps Jay is from the fens of East Anglia where early inhabitants lived by subsistence fishing and carried their catch in wide shallow baskets called “scuttles” ”
According to T H White, there was a rumour the fen people had spotted bellies and their fingers were webbed. Perhaps sea level rise could border on desirable for some.
IIRC from my school days, many years ago, UEA was not exactly demanding when it came to entrance qualifications.
As for Mann and the climategate investigations…To this day, NONE of the “investigations” went in and in a forensic way tried to find the deleted emails. What was Jones et al so nervous about being found regarding the IPCC AR4?
What was in those e-mails?
That the “investigations” were concluded with no searching for the deleted e-mails is a travesty. Any competent investigation would have found these. There are always back-up tapes and back-ups of the back-ups, or even at recipient’s server.
-Jay
I would hold all scientists to the same standards to which engineers are held: get it right, or people die. My own background is in oil refineries, natural gas plants, petrochemical plants, basic chemical plants, and power plants. In those industries, one does not take chances, use bad data, use questionable measuring instruments, falsify data, manipulate data to obtain a pre-determined outcome, or any of the other myriad things revealed in the post-Climategate mess. Things blow up and people die.
Therefore, I am a skeptic about climate science. At every turn, there is sloppy work, conclusions not supported by the data, very poor quality data, and agenda-driven work. My research and investigations show me that essentially none of the AGW claims are true, and will never be true. I am also very encouraged to see that many other engineers are speaking up and speaking out, using the internet.
from: http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/when-engineers-are-wrong-people-die.html
I have not cut all ties with Penn State, as I am active with our wrestling program helping out the senior members ( post graduate) with pursuit of the their Olympic dreams. I also have roundly praised the Penn State Ewall site and drive traffic to it because it is a great site for people to look at the weather. I also, whether Dr Brune, knows it or not emailed him twice on matters before hand, but had no response from him. A fellow PSU alum, Herb Stevens, 1975 simply had his bounce back.
I have NEVER EXCORIATED Dr. Mann. I “cut my ties” as you say, when a professor of climate ethics, Donald Brown came out and called into question the ethics of people like me because of our stand on global warming. I dont believe for a second that is what a university should be about. I have stated many times, I have read Michael Manns work, and my only comment was that I can see why if that is the focus of your work, why you would believe it. Its not unlike me believing I will win everytime I compete in bodybuilding, because I have trained and prepared so hard . However when tested and challenged, that does not always happen. And that is my point to Dr. Brune and everyone who twists my words and meaning. SO DR. BRUNE IF YOU ARE LISTENING, HERE IS WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY TO YOU, what I have said countless times. Someone is right and someone is wrong. The forecast I have out is that the earth will cool, based on OBJECTIVELY MEASURED SATELLITE TEMPS, back to where it was at the start of the satellite era in the late 1970s, which is when the PDO turned warm , by the year 2030
And it would figure that academia does not want to admit all this is is a big forecast, for it would force accountability. In the private sector, when wrong, you are fired. There is most certainly accountability Arguments that if I am wrong that the world is going to be worse off pale compare to the misery being caused by Utopian unproven ideas of a planetary calamity that is ruining the chance for millions to have a better life.. now. Unintended consequences of things we think we can control, but can not, have destroyed the lives of many. So 2 can play the ethics game and there is my point, and why that is the reason I got upset. It had nothing to do with Dr. Mann
I realize it is a simplistic argument, and if correct, shoots down a lot of things, but that is how life is sometimes. What I dont expect is for you to twist what I say. I have never once brought up the emails, and frankly dont give a hoot, because people say things all the time, that they wish they did not say. In fact people on my side of the debate get mad at me for not digging into them. So stop it now and you should apologize for your comments. YOU ARE MISTAKEN as to why I cut my ties, it had NOTHING to do with Dr. Mann, everything to do with Donald Brown’ statement on “climate ethics” which pre supposes an answer to this matter and then calls into question the ethics of people that resist his ideas. That crosses the line, the demonization of people who stand for what they stand for because of what they have learned and worked at over the years, and much of it because of the outstanding teaching I had at
Penn State! That is what is so amazing to me, we were taught the very methods that have many us calling into question this whole AGW argument. But never do I remember someone in a position of authority implying a counter opinion in science was unethical. When did this all start? I guess the bigger question is , how did it all start? Suppose in 20 years the earth has cooled, I would never say anyone that thought it would warm was unethical because they took that stand based on their ideas and research when it had to do with science. That to me seems like a matter of control of someones freedom, and that is when I said what I said.. not over Dr. Mann. I have been humbled enough by the majesty of the atmosphere to know that in any future event, there is a chance someone else may be right, not that its an open and shut case. But when someone starts using arguments such as “ethics” on these matters, that is in an effort to silence someone. What if I think its unethical for instance, for someone who’s salary is tied to the profits of others ( where do you think support for the university comes from, the moon?) to then try to eliminate or reduce the economic engine that was responsible for the ability of the university to charge what it charges, or get the grants it gets, in the first place, should I be saying that?. As Penn States tuition continues to sky rocket, just who is going to pay for all this if we are handcuffed over some future fear that is yet to be proven? Is that ethical?
The PSU meteorology department when I went to school there was the number one meteorology department in the country, so much so even Joe Paterno would brag about us.
My wife captained the womens gymnastic team when she was there, was the asst coach for 20 years. I bled on their wrestling mats along with EARNING my degree in meteorology. I would think I and my wife have proven our love and loyalty to PSU and to the doors that opened because of our paths through there. We were not taught to be blind sheep when we were in school, we were taught to be hungry for knowledge and to question and move forward without fear! At least that seemed to be the lesson when I was there.There is no room for silencing of peoples voice in debates over the future when a test looms in front of us that can shine more light on the answer. That is what this is all about, and I hope
I have made myself clear. If Dr Mann is proven correct over the years, then so be it, and I will applaud him, for all I care about is getting the right answer, AND HAVING THE FREEDOM TO PURSUE IT WITHOUT SOMEONE IMPLYING I, or others that think the way we do, fall short in our ethics.
I wish you the best
JB
charles nelson says @ur momisugly October 6, 2011 at 2:24 am
The question I would have to ask is; Why go to all this trouble to conduct a seminar/meeting that fails to address any new issues?
The propaganda technique is called “Repetition”. If all available outlets are filled with a repeated story, then no other story gets out.
Out, out, damned whitewash.
========
Shame on me for not attending! I got out of my doctor appointment at 12:30, decided that while I had enough time to go through the security and had charged the battery in my camera the night before, I just didn’t feel well enough to go to NOAA. Furthermore, I expected recordings wouldn’t be permitted and Q&A would be very limited and suppressed. I’m familiar with these kinds of presentations, having worked many years for a scientific organization funded by NASA and NSF. I’m very sorry I wasn’t there to lend support, Earl. Many thanks for being there and reporting back.
If I may make a suggestion, from my well used armchair, could we consider using different language and focus when posing questions to our opponents?
“I got to ask one question: Since so much of science now relies on computer codes, isn’t the whole project of modeling a hypercomplex non-linear chaotic system in an attempt to make psychic prognostications 50 or 100 years out a bit hubristic?”
It was my understanding that Dr. Brune was in Boulder to defend Dr. Mann’s response to the Climate-gate email event and subsequent investigations. May I suggest that trying to address CAGW studies in general took the focus off Dr. Mann’s immediate problems. Don’t ask a question that is really a statement of your point of view on a subject, for which you have few recognized credentials. The wave of the hand and suggestion of your need for education will always be the easy response. Perhaps you might have asked Dr. Brune to clarify Dr. Mann’s argument that FOI’d emails were his personal property. Arrange to have a companion ask a follow up question if your question is dodged. Baby steps. Keep it simple and precise.
Further, we have adopted a number of buzz words such as “hubris” that weaken the impact of serious inquiry. It’s a mistake to respond in-kind to incivility. May I suggest that we refrain from using emotional language and rude euphemisms? Everyone knows what you mean. We should carefully review our comments for errors that make our ideas unclear, difficult to read and subject to ridicule for the odd misspellings and mistakes. Our comments aren’t memos about where to go to lunch. If we are to be taken seriously, we need to carefully express ourselves, to the best of our ability. Don’t give the opponents a way to avoid response to the issue in question.
Again, I’m sorry I wasn’t there to lend support. I know that attending and reporting on this talk involved personal risk (think “Body Snatchers”), time and work. Thanks for doing it!
W. Earl Allen, thanks for writing this up!