Nothing but top-notch science!
Penn State University has now completed its investigation of climate research Michael Mann with respect to “ClimateGate”–and sure enough, it’s an exoneration. My understanding is that the report, which releases at 330 pm today, can be found here.
You’ll recall that Mann had previously been found clean on three other counts; the remaining question being looked into was whether Mann had engaged in any actions that “seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities.”
And now, the answer is no. The ClimateGate vindications just keep on coming….all smoke, no fire, thus far–and probably always.
I miss the days when journalists would actually ask questions.
Mooney is a journalist? I thought he was a cheerleader….
Well, I was using the term loosely….. but I think there was a time when some authors of periodicals felt a personal responsibility towards discerning and then relating the truth……
There was a time when that was important even in a journalism class!
Les,
Mooney is, indeed, nothing but a cheerleader for every Far Left political agenda ever imagined. The following link ostensibly offers a list of Mooney’s favorite blogs:
http://www.waronscience.com/links.php
IMO, anybody who puts Quark Soup, Deltoid and RealClimate on their list of favorite blogs is very clearly putting politics WAY ahead of science. But, virtually all so-called “journalists” do (and the Columbia Journalism Review is not the least bit shy about promoting that behavior):
http://sbvor.blogspot.com/2008/08/propagandists-guarding-gates.html
Let’s see. An investigation by the very people who benefit from M Mann’s grants. I’m not sure this could be characterized as anything other than a foregone conclusion. I’m sure the first part of the investigation consisted of calculating how much money would be lost if the M Mann funding stream dried up followed immediately by finding excuses not to do any investigating.
A lot of people like Michael Mann and he’s been very successful in getting research grants. Therefore, Michael Mann has unimpeachable character and should not be questioned when he says he did nothing wrong.
A lot of people like Anthony Weiner and he’s been very successful in getting elected. Therefore, Anthony Weiner has unimpeachable character and should not be questioned when he says he did nothing wrong.
It looks like a win for Climate Scientist.
And a major hit to the reputation of a university! Win the battle by deception and lose the war when reality sets in!
More fuel added to the fire about the need for funding worthless research and organizations that defend the indefensible. It would be good if this leads to reduced funding of NSF.
Lol, its a win for a climate scientist, its a big loss for science.
This is the sort of “dirty laundry” one doesn’t want to fall into the hands of those who might potentially try to distort things…
Michael Mann, July 31, 2003: email 1059664704
“those who might potentially try to distort things… ”
A good self description by the Mann
As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all; it’s about plausibly deniable accusations.
Michael Mann, October 27, 2009: email 1256735067
The Mann really should have learned to STFU! His own words condemn him! But that is an occupational hazard in the Climatology community!
Just ask the Mooneys and Plaits of this world…why was the Rogers Commission “Presidential” and not just NASA’s?
If it han’t been for Feynmann daring to be a “bit of a pain” (at least as far as the other panel memebr were concerned), that would have been a whitewash too!
I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2000 years, rather than the usual 1000 years, addresses a good earlier point that Jonathan Overpeck made … that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “Medieval Warm Period”, even if we don’t yet have data available that far back.
Michael Mann, June 4, 2003: email 1054757526
So, they want to contain the MWP, and decide to do so, WITHOUT any data to support this conclusion.
You gotta love the scientific method, albeit the Stalin Scientific Methodtm.
The important thing is to deny that this has any intellectual credibility whatsoever and, if contacted by any media, to dismiss this for the stunt that it is.
Michael Mann, October 26, 2003: email 1067194064
Mann discussing a paper that neither he nor anyone on the e-mail chain had read yet.
Lets repeat that: A scientist is asking other scientists to trash a paper they had not even seen yet!
How can any scientist decide a paper is bad, without first reading it? Brian? Care to comment?
This is just a bunker mentality. Climate scientists have been successful at framing attacks on them as attacks on science in general. So we have scientists defending the likes of Mann, not because they agree with him, but because they think that it is science being attacked.
The vast majority of scientists i have talked to about this have no idea about the facts or validity of AGW research. They simply repeat the mantra that “most scientists agree”. If you try and explain the details of the issue, they respond with “No way that can be true, thats stupid, no way a scientist would do that”. Getting them to actually check if the facts are right is damn near impossible. Until the mainstream media starts to actually report on “real” climate science, it will be impossible to break the us against them mentality.
“So we have scientists defending the likes of Mann, not because they agree with him, but because they think that it is science being attacked.”
So what you are saying is they are too stupid to tell come here from sickum. Too stupid to be scientists. Bet they mistake traffic signals for street lights.
Not to put to fine a point on it but most of the actual scientists that I have met do not drive, cook, or use household machinery competently .
Not saying they are stupid, just maybe not too versatile.
Brandon makes a great point here which you have failed to deflect.
Considering the fledgling nature of “Climate science” as a discipline in the first place, they are pretty touchy about having their work checked by experts in less wide ranging fields whose input could be of some use , no ?
Dont confuse lack of personal knowledge, or in some cases simple laziness to fact check, with stupidity. They are simply human and when confronted with a question they defer to fellow scientists first instead of fact checking. The long list of scientists that have stated ” i believed in AGW until I started looking” would seem to support this conclusion.
Scientists tend to defend scientists. Doctors defend doctors. construction workers will defend construction workers. etc.etc
It is the likes of Mann and the IPCC organization that are counting on that mentality and trying every trick in their books to stop people looking closer. Why else would any scientist ever claim “the science is settled” or “the debate is over”? Why try to refute a scientific paper with an ad hominum about “intelligent design”? They are trying to make sure it is us against them to secure kneejerk statements from other scientists that they can parade in the next round of MSM propaganda.
It is a house of cards that depends on nobody looking closer.
Michael Mann is a cash cow for Penn State:
http://sbvor.blogspot.com/2010/01/541184-in-obama-stimulus-to-climategate.html
Why would they NOT vindicate him?
Could it be more obvious that Mann’s Hockey Stick was a fraud?
http://sbvor.blogspot.com/2011/03/berkeley-physics-professor-destroys.html
All this does is destroy whatever might have been left of any credibility Penn State EVER had.
P.S.) I have seen this sort of academic corruption first hand (decades ago). As a graduate student studying and researching environmental science, my major professor was the sleaziest guy I have EVER known. Nobody respected him. But, possessed of the spirit of a used car salesman, he brought in more research money than anybody else. That’s the ONLY way this guy kept his job. Does that sound to you like Michael Mann? Does to me.
Why does Discover magazine have a goon like Mooney doing commentary anyway? It’s supposed to be a popular science mag, sure it’s not a journal but you’d think you would hire someone with at least a bachelors in some kind of science or engineering to do commentary on climate change.
Yep…
Mooney has a bachelor’s degree in English — nothing more. Yet, that somehow qualifies him to serve on the board of the American Geophysical Union? REALLY?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Mooney_%28journalist%29
Gee, AGU stock just went down in my view.
In my previous comment, I may have overstated Mooney’s academic background. The Wikipedia entry only alleges that Mooney “has an English Major”. What the HECK does THAT mean? Did Mooney major in English for one semester before dropping out? Weird!
Maybe it means he’s English and he once stood at the head of a parade?
The guy is better qualified that Big Al! Of course he is still an ID10T!
I was chatting with an acquaintance this afternoon about politics and climate change. He has no formal training in science, owns and operates a couple of coffee shops, and has a passing interest in technical news items. What was interesting was that he actually has a good grasp of the bogus hockey stick graph and why it has problems.
To say the least, I was stunned by how far the hockey stick story has made it into the general public, in spite of the purposeful lack of coverage by the news media.
Yes, I also heard that Joesph Goebbels just exonerated Hitler and company from any and all wrong doing.