ClimateGate: Penn State Initial Report Signals Whitewash
by Christopher C. HornerI have looked over the Penn State University’s report issued yesterday, “RA-10 Inquiry Report: Concerning the Allegations of Research Misconduct Against Dr. Michael E. Mann, Department of Meteorology, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences”. Below are eight points addressing my initial impressions, in the order they appear in the report (with one bracketed exception from page 4, moved up slightly in order of appearance here].
My take-away, to spoil the ending for you, is that the panel revealed most of what we need to know about the ability of this internal inquiry to credibly assess charges of misfeasance, by limiting their evidentiary pursuit outside of select blogs and media reports to speaking with Mann, aided by a supportive NAS report (to the exclusion of the Wegman Committee report, inexplicable including for a factor cited, below) and one panel member interviewing ex parte two Mann supporters.
In my opinion, by this approach they did not do, and will in hindsight not be deemed as having done, themselves or their institution any favors.
1. This is simply a point of interest but, in describing the CRU e-mail cache that finally (not first) shined a light on Mann’s practices so as to bring the sort of scrutiny that can yield direct professional consequence, the panel chose the word “purloined”, vs. hacked or stolen. P. 3, p. 5.
This is an odd word choice in the general style and vocabulary of the document, and I am guessing that this was selected as the most neutral term; even if it includes “to steal”, the word also contemplates the actions of a suddenly unwelcome “whistleblower”, that erstwhile celebrated creature which the facts available indicate was the source of the documents long-sought under the UK’s freedom of information law. p. 3
2. The panel considered the NAS report that Mann’s suspect practices had prompted, but not the Wegman Committee Report p. 3. The University’s odd decision had already been noted by others, for its sheer incomprehensibility. Even CRU emails acknowledge the importance of reading both, not one of them (go here and hit search for the numerous entries; why, even Mann delves into the Wegman problem his CRU emails at issue — assuming this mail wasn’t weeded out in the paring down from 377 “Mann” emails to focus on 47 of them). “No inquiry, even (especially?) threshold , can be credible if it excludes that detailed assessment of relevant behavior even if it addresses work predating Mann’s tenure at PSU..so did the NAS report the panel reviewed.” Not that the reports predated his tenure, they addressed work that did.
3. Just as a point of interest, I was struck by the panel’s inclusion of this assessment in a ten-page summary of two-months’ work. “Throughout the interview, Dr. Mann answered each question carefully:” p. 4 ["... In addition, Dr. Mann provided a ten page supplemental written response to the matters discussed during his interview." P. 4]
4. In the in-person interview, “He explained the content and meaning of the emails about which we inquired;” p. 4
It is problematic that they only interviewed Mann even to reach a threshold determination. If the content and meaning of the emails is important, as is implicit, then why would they not speak to the authors of these important emails mentioning him, and many others not written by him, which made the final cut for scrutiny and assessment?
Consider this in a judicial context and you see the curiosity of calling in Mann but only Mann to explain what other people wrote and meant. Happens in trials all the time. Um, like when the authors are dead.
5. “He explained that he never used inappropriate influence in reviewing papers by other scientists who disagreed with the conclusions of his science;” though I note that this does not cover Mann pressuring others re: reviewing and publication. Seems sort of relevant, even if he did also issued a blanket denial of any inappropriate behavior.
6. “On January 22, 2010, the inquiry committee and Dr. Brune met again to review the evidence, including but not limited to Dr. Mann’s answers to the committee’s questions, both in the interview and in his subsequent submissions. All were impressed by Dr. Mann’s composure and his forthright responses to all of the queries that were asked of him.” (emphasis added) The assertion of Mann’s “forthrightness” alone, given inter alia the panel did not, as noted above, apparently interview others necessary to make such a determination (outside of one panel member meeting ex parte with two well-known Mann supports, see bottom of page 4), is troubling. But I suppose that’s what internal inquiries and other self-policing often produces.
7. The money conclusion, except for any that inform your assessment of the credibility of the inquiry, is this:
Finding 4. After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee could not make a definitive finding whether there exists any evidence to substantiate that Dr. Mann did engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities.” Pp. 6-7.
Reading the panel’s quantification of this finding over the next two pages, they sure look like a band edging over toward the outcome, when the music (inquiries) stops, that leaves them standing pretty squarely on the spot staked out in the initial wagon-circling, dismissive response of the relevant and cloistered scientific community detailed by Wegman et al. Maybe they behaved less purely than is the driven snow, but that’s more a matter of perception derived from “private” correspondence never intended for outside assessment; who has not been indiscreet? However that is not the same as violating laws, etc.
The wagon-circlers in ClimateGate’s early days involved climate scientists waving away the actions of fellow climate scientists with whom they shared parallel interests of not seeing their gravy train derailed; Indeed, the panel summarizes that response of others as “nothing more than the private discussions of scientists engaged in a hotly debated topic of enormous social impact.”
Penn State risks the appearance of waving away the actions of a fellow Penn Stater with whom they share the interests in this not being a drawn-out tawdry affair for the University. We will see how they distinguish their own, surely more verbose ultimate conclusions from the wagon-circlers’ pithy dismissal.
8. Also troubling is the panel’s selective notation that “some may seek to use the debate over Dr. Mann’s research conduct and that of his colleagues as a proxy for the larger and more substantive debate over the science of anthropogenic global warming and its societal (political and economic) ramifications”. P. 8.
Yes. And some may seek to diminish the scrutiny of Mann’s research and conduct and that of his colleagues to protect the larger and more substantive industry that they represent. Why only one of these interests is worth mentioning is of a part with the panel being taken by just how forthright their subject was, despite not acquiring context to make that judgment but which assertion was material for inclusion in a ten-page assessment of more than two months’ work.
Sadly, the panel’s express focus, the only one among the relevant issues which troubles them for further inquiry — “questions in the public’s mind about Dr. Mann’s conduct of his research activity, given that this may be undermining confidence in his findings as a scientist, and given that it may be undermining public trust in science in general and climate science specifically” (p. 9) — is likely to be viewed in hindsight as having revealed a driving desire of dispelling questions and rehabilitating Mann, “science” and/or the University, not into fairly exploring the substance.
In conclusion, these points all remind us of the frequent need for and widespread use of independent inquiry when seeking to truly discern the meaning and importance of credibly alleged misfeasance. Penn State is heading toward concluding that this is all a big misperception, a matter of appearances more than substance. Something similar can be said about their initial assessment. Appearances matter, and this doesn’t appear good.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
84 Comments
The climate community reminds me of Capt Queeg, obsessed to the point of madness. The downfall of the anthropomorphic global climate change myth has hopefully begun to fall apart.
No financial motive? That giant sucking sound you hear is the vacuum cleaner of the global warming movement starting up to suck the wealth out of the western world.
I doubt Penn State will cut off the funds that Mann pulls in, like the 1/2 mil grant coming to him this year from us the tax payers.. If they did find him guilty of fudging the data it would be a blow to Penn State for years to come and they may never fully recoup their science dept. as other university's will reap the rewards of their loss..
The final nail to his fake hockey stick graph and other manipulations will have to come from othe side the university, which will have the same effect as if Penn did the right thing at first.. They just never learn !!!
I suspect this report will not prevent a drop in donations. Corporations are not stupid. They have been milked using a scheme to create fear.
Science is dead and many Universities have become travesties.
His corruption is absolute, just follow the money.
As a PSU alumn, I'm so disappointed that they're providing cover for this fraud.
I'd bet JoePa is pissed.
Nothing to see here. Everything is just fine and dandy. Just keep moving along. Nothing to see.
I think it's a bit late for this "shine-ola." After the numerous reports of further CRU climate data indiscretions and the laughable IPCC 4th report "oversights" the cat's out of the bag on the AGW fraud.
I always enjoy your analysis of the global warming hoax, and it appears that Penn State is in a desperate attempt to protect the cash. Keep up the good work Christopher, the flim-flam artist promoting global warming are tapping faster and faster…funny stuff!
Me too. It would be great if the alumni would pipe up and withhold support unless they can Mann. My son goes to PItt and the liberalism there is no better. You would be shocked at what passes for a "class" these days. He is currently enrolled in "The History of Rock and Roll" which counts towards a humanities credit. Anyone else with a kid in college hear a big flushing sound?
What Christopher is trying to tell us is that we should be angry that Penn State didn't tell us what we want to hear. He could have written this piece five years ago and come to the same conclusion: climate scientists very bad men.
Al Gore is going to be the next PSU homecoming queen too. /sarc.
Amazing, Professors judging professors and finding NOTHING wrong!
Jury of Peers? Jury of Collaberators, is more like it.
[...] in “Hockey Stick” Graph Bogus, Uh, ‘Fudged’ (video) Christopher C. Horner, Big Government: ClimateGate: Penn State Initial Report Signals Whitewash and Bin Laden Weighs in to Prop Up Flagging “Climate” Issue and Greens Flip: Senate [...]
They need to continue this fraud in order to pass Cap in trade, which will be the largest reelection slush fund in history. Folks, it's all meat on the same bone. The end game is the same; the distruction of the Constitution.
How can anybody say this isn't a conflict of interest? How can Penn State investigate itself? This is outrageous !!
The fraud of Dr. Mann is plain to see mikatollah. Penn State does itself no good by running from it.
Isn't Mann the same guy that got $200million in stimulus Obama money for his continuing research into global warming?
Hey! Hold on there. You just need to know it is difficult for the educated elite to lable anyone with education (alledged or otherwise) as common crook, thief, or even a common ordinary community organizing thug. we must have some respect for our learned colleagues. Even if they appear in the onset to be less than willing to call a spade a spade.
"CRU Director Jones quickly emailed colleagues including Michael E. Mann at Penn State University. Mann, as you recall, was the character who cooked up the infamous “hockey stick” chart showing run-away global warming.
Unfortunately, when researchers finally twisted Mann’s arm to provide the computer program he wrote, it turns out that his algorithm will smartly find a hockey stick formation in any data set of 8000 or more. Even the New York City telephone book will do nicely! Now discredited, Mann’s hockey stick was the principal basis for the UN’s first IPCC alarmist report back in the 90’s.
Phil Jones urgently wrote to Mann: “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re [the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report on global temperatures]?”
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=34634
Naw, Penn St. is just following the established practice of their esteemed professor, Dr. Mann, utilized to push AGW.
Actually I think ObamaCare would have been the biggest reelection slush fund in history and cap and trade would have been a close second. But you may be right.
There is probable cause to arrest Mann and other principals like Gore, charging them with RICO violations. Hey! if its good enough for mom and pop dirty bookstores its good enough for Mann Gore the Pres Pelos, Reid, and anyone who has signed their name. Special considerations given to those who signed originally and later withdrew support.
"Mann's hockey stick dismisses both the Medieval Warm Period (800 to 1300) and the Little Ice Age (1300 to 1900), two climate events that are fairly widely recognized in the scientific literature. Mann believes that "the 20th Century is "nominally the warmest" of the past millennium and that the decade of the 1990s was the warmest decade on record.
The Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age are replaced by a largely benign and slightly cooling linear trend in climate until 1900. But as is clear from a close analysis of Mann's methods, the hockey stick is formed by crudely grafting the surface temperature record of the 20th Century onto a pre-1900 tree ring record."
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=1386
"Mann's hockey stick dismisses both the Medieval Warm Period (800 to 1300) and the Little Ice Age (1300 to 1900), two climate events that are fairly widely recognized in the scientific literature. Mann believes that "the 20th Century is "nominally the warmest" of the past millennium and that the decade of the 1990s was the warmest decade on record.
The Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age are replaced by a largely benign and slightly cooling linear trend in climate until 1900. But as is clear from a close analysis of Mann's methods, the hockey stick is formed by crudely grafting the surface temperature record of the 20th Century onto a pre-1900 tree ring record."
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=1386
Ditto, JCH, PSU 77 "May No Act Bring Shame"
I trust this as much as I trust the ACORN internal investigation.
another shining example of the vaunted 'peer review' process- aka i n c e s t u o u s daisy chain…
“He explained the content and meaning of the emails about which we inquired”
So that's alright then. Nothing to worry about after all.
What we learn from the article is that Penn State has done a very sloppy investigation, and this is especially galling because the people involved SHOULD know and be expected to perform diligent research, a form of which is INVESTIGATIONS.
Mik, if you want to go through life as a dumba$$, that's your right. But at least post your infantile babble someplace else.
This is casting their research integrity in a very bad light.
Another administration, another set of folks on the panels granting funding, and Penn could find itself ignored when it comes time to pass out grant money.
Either you are wrong or you are right…there are no "six-degrees" of veracity…is there?
What a sham…guess our "old country", "un-educated" Grandfathers were correct…"just because they say it is so, does not make it true".
And to think we pay these folks to "educate" our chldren. Time to re-think things…eh?
All that carbon credit money will disappear into a black hole, only to reappear in our dear leader's campaign coffers. George Soros' fingerprints are all over this, if anybody would bother to follow the money. Al Gore, George Soros, and Maurice Strong are part of the cabal, along with Goldman Sachs.
If there's a 1% chance of global disaster, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response. It's not about our analysis … It's about our response. These are the words of Dick Cheney in regards to Pakistan, and Nuclear weapons, Do these words have no meaning when it comes to Global Climate Change????
Well. I am amazed at the stupidity of our college elite. This is proof of people being educated beyond their intelligence. I don't understand what possible pull this gent has. In the world of reality his influence is naught. We caall for heads. We call for justice. A tar and feather party with customary teransportation by splintery rail is seeming more and more attractive. This is the reverse of Luddism. We are informed, educated and very angry. The crows are coming home. Hope he loves the roost.
When a veteran professional like Michael Barone declares it dead; it's dead. Too bad for you, Michael Mann.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/How-cl...
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
Anyone that expects an institution to conduct an investigation of one of its own and actually find fault is nothing but a fool.
Should we not be demanding that our Congressional representatives hold their own inquiry – they were more than willing to bring bank Presidents to Washington to ask them questions – why not these scam artists?
Neither are Al;ums "stupid". Donations ARE going to fall rapidly.
mik, you're old enough to remember the hew and cry about "GLOBAL COOLING", yet you have swallowed as whole cloth the ever changing "GLOBAL WARMING" to "CLIMATE CHANGE" hoaxes. WHY?
Just keep in drinking that KOOL-Aid, you poor benighted fool and teh rest of us will keep on laughing at you. ;^)
You left out Nancy Pelosi and her husband, who are HEAVILY invested in wind crap and T. Boone Pickens.
That was a different deal, but they're among many who stand to profit from this scam who are too heavily invested to walk away.
Yes, it was a different deal, but still part of the whole.
Just look at how many present and former pols are involved in this scam!
You got that right. I hope they lose big time.
So do I; these people KNOW it's all a giant HOAX and thought that they saw a way to make BIG BUCKS off "the little people", which is really all that these scams has ever been about.
I hope they all lose their collective shirts, though sadly, Gore has made many many millions off this crapola. It makes me want to SCREAM !
Mann got 2.4 mill from the feb09 'stimulus'.
He is nothing short of an arrogant mobster, RICO for him.
PENN is going to be much more embarrassed for this whitewash once all the facts are out.
Clear thinking people know that climate change is bullshit. The only ones leff are the real true believers that are either relying on the myth for income or simply hate people and our country so much that they can only see us as evil idiots too stupid to know better. Those people will never change, so the only ammunition against them is to marginalize them with facts and as time passes and the planet doesn't implode they will be seen as the complete morons they are.
The Penn state investigation is a waste of time. To defeat those still clinging to the AGW scam because of a political/financial agenda we must defeat the enablers, namely the socialists democrats who funded the AGW scam to the tune of 70 billion. We must target those responsible and vote their non american commie rear ends out of office in the next elections
Oh, reallly Mik? You don't think the Federal and IPCC grant money has anything to do with it? The end is near and you know it…
"could not make a definitive finding whether there exists any evidence"
Could not. Would not. It's too late to save Mann. Why go down with his ship unless…unless there is money involved?
Penn State would probably have to give back or give up money. And since my fine home state where my ideals were galvanized – ideals that were shaped by how our country was founded – is going Chapter 9 should we really care anymore.
Shame on YOU.
I'm more of a hung, drawn, and quarters person, myself, with Gore's head then cut off , stuck in a pike, and head on pike then placed on the dome of the Capital building.
I think you spelled that wrong…
When is someone in the government going to have the BALLS to admit the GLOBAL WARMING or MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE is nothing but a big scam on the people of the world. I hope people finally wake up to this insanity that being perpetrated on everyone to take away our way of life.
Penn State gives Mann a Snowjob for $500 million.
There were no WMD..and so it appears "global warming".
Democratic/Republican…follow the $$$.
Can you say "Start Over"!
They have fallen at Harvard recently. Alums aren't stupid. Just educated badly (indoctrinated is more on target).
[...] investigation would provide more credibility. Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute has serious issues with Penn State’s initial report of the Mann investigation. And Congressman Issa (R-CA) is [...]
Mr. Horner,
Your stand is being vindicated!
This is the most important piece of information in years:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/clim...
India is pulling out of this scam. it can no longer trust the UN or the IPCC. The wheels are falling off the wagon, and they will not be able to hold it together. India is one of the largest, fastest growing countries in the world (the other being China). They will not be held to "junk science' to stifle their growth.
Alums have been cutting back or off, in recent years, as colleges and universities get more and more and yet still more far out lefty; I know that I shut the checkbook on my alma maters, as have many of my old college friends.
Harvard had insult added to injury, because their endowment fund lost a ton of money recently.
As a Penn State Alum I'm disgusted by this. I'd hope for a better report.
Maybe if enough alumni complain and withhold their annual donations with an explanation of this is why they're withholding them it'll have some impact.
Last time I checked Penn State made a point of saying this controversy had not hurt donations but I'm wondering if that's really true or if it's more damage control.
Someone said it's bit late for trying to put a shine on this turd, boy they were they ever right, waaay too late.
I can't fathom why this guy hasn't been forced to post bail in order to appear in street clothes.
I won't even touch the half a million greenbacks out of the stimulus money he's supposed to get for his vital research….okay yes I will. That money was supposed to juice the economy, not get folded up into research grants. That is quite disgusting, even if I didn't suspect Mr. Mann of fraud. It is also incidentally the precise reason why government shouldn't even engage in such behavior.
I ready to turn off the Federal Government now, just shut it off already. We should have killed it when it was little and weak, now it's entirely out of hand.
I will go back and read the document later. But, reading the names of the committee tells me everything I want to know. I have witnessed such committes on academic derelection before. The final actions of the committees are fequently poilitcal in nature and are based on "saving face". I saw one eminent plant pathologist nailed to the cross because their actions would look bad in the "court of public opinion", in spite of the fact that he had broken NO university guidelines, let alone any local, state or federal laws or guidelines. I won't make any judgements at this time on Dr. Mann, and PSU has a lot of prestige and money riding on this issue. It is not about to give itself a what may be a very black eye.
It makes me want to HURT them. I'd like to unzip Gore and feed his entrails to a polar bear.
As an alumnus and a former employee, I can state that this type of thing goes on there, probably frequently, and probably does at other institutions as well. I remember hearing how our group knew something we were advocating was wrong (and another group was right), but we kept doing it because we didn't want to admit we were wrong. Another time, they paid a consultant an enormous amount of money to prove me wrong on one point — and the consultant agreed with me. So they quietly dropped the whole thing and never told me (I found out through other means).
Universities are not places to go for honest and open dialogue about anything.
The name for this is 'The Dodd Dodge'.
Mr Wolf: So, Mr Fox, did you raid the hen house and steal three hens last night?
Mr. Fox: Why, of course not! Little o'l me? Why would I ever do such a thing? Just ask Mrs Fox, I was at the pasture watching daisies row all night with her. And my Cousin, Mr. hound had us over for a grass and grain dinner right after.
Mr, Wolf: No further questions Mr Fox, your reputation is intact.
I am proud of that one…calling James Taranto!
I can see that you're an old school kind of guy. Yeah, I'd love to go medieval on their asses, and if they keep this crap up, somebody is bound to. I think we're approaching a tipping point here, and after that, all bets are off.
[...] [...]
LOL………….I really am "old school"; you've got me pegged correctly.
Forget water boarding, I want Muslim terrorists treated the same way Vlad Tepes ( Vlad the Impaler ) Dracul took care of Muslim ambassadors; he nailed their turbans to their heads.
With the present wussification of the American male, I feel like a wolf among sheep. I will not live in our dear leader's socialist utopia, and the Constitution gives me sanction to deal with these Progressive who have infested every facet of society. I prefer ballots over bullets, but I'm prepared to do whatever it takes.
I too prefer the ballot box to bullets; the latter won't work, the former will. Those who claim otherwise, are delusional.
Have some American males ( notice, I didn't say "men" ) have indeed been wussified; however, I don't believe that that is as serious as you have perceived it to be. Many are just biting their tongues, but deep down, they are men still.
Just look at the stats…….for the most part, married women are conservative, divorced and single, never been married women ( with some exceptions ) are liberals….and extreme ones at that. Men infuluence women, as women influence men………………..marriage improves both sexes !
You make a good point, but I think it has a lot to do with where you live. I live in a Sanctuary city in a blue state.
I've lived in several different states, two of which, especially the cities I lived in, couldn't be more BLUE, if they tried and both also SANCTUARY CITIES; NYC and Chicago.
I DO know whereof I speak.
I'm sure you do. I myself have lived in several states, and a few countries. This happens to be the most blue place, I've ever lived.
Would you mind saying which city you live in? If not, I'll understand.
OT……………I LOVE your nic, know what it means, but I bet few others are acquainted with the word, where it comes from, and knows its meaning.
[...] IPCC Scientist: Transparency ‘An Obligation’ Christopher C. Horner, Big Government: ClimateGate: Penn State Initial Report Signals Whitewash and Bin Laden Weighs in to Prop Up Flagging “Climate” Issue and Greens Flip: Senate [...]
As a PSU graduate: I recall a 3 pg letter the newly installed chair of the Mineral Economics Dept sent out to alumni 2-3 yrs ago highlighting his profound belief in the Global Warming imperative by virtue of his previous "professional" work. there's much more to this than meets the eye.
in the event…PSU recently hit me up for the annual alumnus contribution. bad timing…:-)…….any other PSU grads out there? you need to consider holding on to your benjamins until academic integrity is restored at this institution.
see my earlier post….as a PSU grad I will no longer donate until Mann is gone. time wot work through the various alumni clubs sprinkled across the country.
Minneapolis
[...] IPCC Scientist: Transparency ‘An Obligation’ Christopher C. Horner, Big Government: ClimateGate: Penn State Initial Report Signals Whitewash and Greens Flip: Senate Cap-and-Trade Bill ‘Not a Serious Proposal’ Rich Trzupek, Big [...]
Ahhhhhhhhhh, I see. Okay, yes, you are stuck in a blue mess; sadly.
I've got a picture of Al Franken taped to my heavy bag. It encourages me to work out.
LOL………………………
greatly, the publishis in reality the sweetest on this deserving subject. I fit in with your conclusions and will thirstily look forward to your next updates. Just saying thankx will not just be satisfactory, for the fantastic clarity in your journalism. I will right away grab your rss feed to stay privy of any updates.
You must be logged in to post a comment.