Posted on 11/28/2009 11:23:23 AM PST by Sub-Driver
ClimateGate's Michael Mann To Be Investigated By Penn State By Noel Sheppard Created 2009-11-28 14:10
As a result of the growing ClimateGate [0] scandal, Penn State University will be investigating Michael Mann, its high-profile professor on the sending and receiving end of controversial e-mail messages recently obtained from a British Climate Research Unit.
For those unfamiliar, Mann, as one of the originators of the infamous Hockey Stick graph [1], is the climatologist at the very heart of the global warming myth.
As the creator of "Mike's Nature trick," a particularly damning phrase used in one of the e-mail messages in question, Mann is also a key figure in ClimateGate.
Given his importance to the movement and all those involved including Nobel Laureate Al Gore, President Obama, and Congressional Democrats desperately trying to enact cap and trade legislation, it will be very interesting to see how this press release [2] from Penn State gets reported in the coming days (h/t Anthony Watts [3] via Marc Morano [4]):
Professor Michael Mann is a highly regarded member of the Penn State faculty conducting research on climate change. Professor Mann's research papers have been published in well respected peer-reviewed scientific journals. In November 2005, Representative Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) requested that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) convene a panel of independent experts to investigate Professor Mann's seminal 1999 reconstruction of the global surface temperature over the past 1,000 years. The resulting 2006 report of the NAS panel (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676) concluded that Mann's results were sound and has been subsequently supported by an array of evidence that includes additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions.
In recent days a lengthy file of emails has been made public. Some of the questions raised through those emails may have been addressed already by the NAS investigation but others may not have been considered. The University is looking into this matter further, following a well defined policy used in such cases. No public discussion of the matter will occur while the University is reviewing the concerns that have been raised.
How will media report this announcement?
In case they don't, maybe they should review a couple of key e-mail messages involving Mann:
From: Phil Jones To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx [5] Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000 Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx [6],t.osborn@xxxx.xxx
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers Phil
Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx [7] NR4 7TJ UK
And (via Tom Nelson [8], emphasis his):
From: "Michael E. Mann" ,,,Subject: RE: IPCC revisions Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 12:35:24 -0400 ... Walked into this hornet's nest this morning! Keith and Phil have both raised some very good points. And I should point out that Chris, through no fault of his own, but probably through ME not conveying my thoughts very clearly to the others, definitely overstates any singular confidence I have in my own (Mann et al) series. ...I had been using the entire 20th century, but in the case of Keith's, we need to align the first half of the 20th century w/ the corresponding mean values of the other series, due to the late 20th century decline.
So if Chris and Tom (?) are ok with this, I would be happy to add Keith's series. That having been said, it does raise a conundrum: We demonstrate (through comparining an exatropical averaging of our nothern hemisphere patterns with Phil's more extratropical series) that the major discrepancies between Phil's and our series can be explained in terms of spatial sampling/latitudinal emphasis (seasonality seems to be secondary here, but probably explains much of the residual differences). But that explanation certainly can't rectify why Keith's series, which has similar seasonality *and* latitudinal emphasis to Phil's series, differs in large part in exactly the opposite direction that Phil's does from ours. This is the problem we all picked up on (everyone in the room at IPCC was in agreement that this was a problem and a potential distraction/detraction from the reasonably concensus viewpoint we'd like to show w/ the Jones et al and Mann et al series.
So, if we show Keith's series in this plot, we have to comment that "something else" is responsible for the discrepancies in this case. Perhaps Keith can help us out a bit by explaining the processing that went into the series and the potential factors that might lead to it being "warmer" than the Jones et al and Mann et al series?? We would need to put in a few words in this regard. Otherwise, the skeptics have an field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith in the paleoestimates. I don't think that doubt is scientifically justified, and I'd hate to be the one to have to give it fodder!
Stay tuned.
PSU offers on of THE BEST online sites for weather and forecasting. I’m surprised it took them until now, with a scandal, to investigate Mann. They have plenty of bright meteorological and climatological minds that could see the fraud he perpetrates.
Let me be the first to say, Penn State needs to prove that they are not just performing a wink and a nod whitewash. I vote “no confidence” in any university doing a self investigation. RATs investigating RATs results in a ‘no-bill” regardless of the crime and amount of evidence.
As the creator of "Mike's Nature trick," a particularly damning phrase used in one of the e-mail messages in question, Mann is also a key figure in ClimateGate.
I haven’t forgotten the Ward Churchill debacle.
Not to mention being on the receiving end of tens of millions of taxpayer dollars with which to conduct his "research".
Eggsackly! bttt
I hear you, but that was clouded by “academic freedom” while this is pretty much an ethics issue, aka “phonyfacting” and few academics want to be caught in a position of supporting flat-out fabrication.
Who will be the first major climate hoaxer to “flip” and go for a deal?
The most you can hope for....is that they ask for a committee review of his publications...which would include a statistical analysis of his data. This would turn into a major insult for Mann...and if his data were noted as false or cherry-picked...they could ask him to retract the document.
The university could load the committee with mostly environmentalists...but still to make it legit...a real math analyst would have to review the statistical method that he used...and that might be enough to bring Mann back down to Earth.
My guess is that you’ve see the last of Mann publications. He’ll quietly retire to some teaching position and not be seen much anymore.
PSU offers on of THE BEST online sites for weather and forecasting. I’m surprised it took them until now, with a scandal, to investigate Mann. They have plenty of bright meteorological and climatological minds that could see the fraud he perpetrates.
++++++++++++++++
Have you seen Ben Stein’s expelled? There are powerful forces that relegate against intellectual freedom in the US and about the world.
This not the Michael Mann who produced Miami Vice, Crime Story, Manhunter, Heat, and other great films.
Turn JoePa loose on him.
Stricter penalties have been applied for athletic recruiting irregularities.
Let me be the first to say, Penn State needs to prove that they are not just performing a wink and a nod whitewash. I vote “no confidence” in any university doing a self investigation. RATs investigating RATs results in a ‘no-bill” regardless of the crime and amount of evidence.
+++++++++++++++
Keep their feet to the FIRE. No mercy!
Have you seen Ben Stein’s expelled?
++++++++++++++
Sorry Ben Stein’s Expelled (the film).
I don't know that the entire University should be stripped of funding.
Certainly the department that promulgated this hoax.
Isn't there such a thing as fraud anymore? Didn't that used to be a crime?
Not to mention being on the receiving end of tens of millions of taxpayer dollars with which to conduct his “research”.
++++++++++++++
This is where and why this battle/coverup are being presently waged. Still no serious mention about this in the RAT press. The Wa Compost yesterday belittled the whole scandal - of course. The morons. Who would expect them to have a shred of integrity about this scandal magnitudes larger than Watergate?
You cannot make a believe that which his paycheck depends on him not believing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.