Wednesday, February 03, 2010

The State of Mann

Penn State's investigation of Michael Mann's scientific behavior, as brought to light by the hacked CRU emails, has completed its inquiry phase. The report can be found here. Quickly:

1) Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to suppress or falsify data?

No substance to allegation.

2) Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4, as suggested by Phil Jones?

No substance to allegation.

3) Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any misuse of privileged or confidential information available to you in your capacity as an academic scholar?

No substance to allegation.

4) Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities?

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. It is the case that there has been a public outcry from some quarters that Dr. Mann and his colleagues did deviate from what some observers claim to be standard academic practice. All disciplines and scientific fields work within broad bounds of "accepted scientific" practice that apply to all researchers. However, within different disciplines of science there are additional elements of accepted practice that may be specific to those disciplines and therefore are different from those of other disciplines and fields. For example, accepted practices in a field of pure mathematics, such as number theory, may differ markedly from those in a field such as socio-biology. This is axiomatic. That said, the committee could not make a definitive finding on this allegation for reasons that follow.

[...]


Decision 4. Given that information emerged in the form of the emails purloined from CRU in November 2009, which have raised 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, the inquiry committee believes an investigatory committee of faculty peers from diverse fields should be constituted under RA-10 to further consider this allegation.

Worth noting that the committee, recognizing that the Mann case was being used as a proxy for larger questions surrounding the science of AGW, were careful to exclude these latter questions from consideration.

Update: Mann speaks:

"I am very pleased that, after a thorough review, the independent Penn State committee found no evidence to support any of the allegations against me.

Three of the four allegations have been dismissed completely. Even though no evidence to substantiate the fourth allegation was found, the University administrators thought it best to convene a separate committee of distinguished scientists to resolve any remaining questions about academic procedures."

37 comments:

Ti-Guy said...

From your link to the report:

Given the sheer volume of the communications to Penn State, the similarity of their content and their sources, which included University alumni, federal and state politicians, and others, many of whom had had no relationship with Penn State, it was concluded that the matter required examination by the cognizant University official...

You mean that's all it takes for a formal investigation to be launched? A bunch of faceless nobodies copying-and-pasting the same arguable assertions and emailing them over and over and over again?

I can understand why Penn State (party school numero uno!) would do this, but the ramifications of bending to mob pressure like that are creepy.

Frunger said...

I don't think there was any doubt as to what the results of the 'investigation' would be.

We're close to the whole AGW scam tipping point, but nobody wants to be one to push it over a cliff. The scientific community has rode the grave train of global warming funding for too long to want to be labled as the one to kill that golden goose.

All you have to do is tack 'Due to climate change' on the end of every research proposal and your chances of getting funded goes up by orders of magnitude.

Gerrard787 said...

The sheer volume is simply testimony to how long and defiantly certain scientists obstructed the release of data the public had a right to.

The other important point is that Penn State investigating itself is a bit like the police investigating themselves. The conclusions are often not entirely objective.

Now . . . onto the IPCC. How are those Himalayan glaciers doing?

Anonymous said...

"I don't think there was any doubt as to what the results of the 'investigation' would be. "

Of course there wasn't any doubt for anyone who listened to the denidiot claims and then looked at the context of the emails themselves. But, for the legions of hapless dimwits who look to the NatPo or Rupert Murdoch's weather readers to inform them, the results may have been a surprise.

Anonymous said...

"The sheer volume is simply testimony to how long and defiantly certain scientists obstructed the release of data the public had a right to."

Actually, its testimony to the fact that a lot of dimwits are heavily influenced by a handful of liars. The line between dimwit and liar is often blurred, however. You certainly straddle it.

Gerrard787 said...

Nice try Lenny but Ti does the insults (marginally) better.

Answer the first few FOI requests and there will be no deluge.

As Phil Jones now says:

We do need to make more of the data available, I fully accept that. We need to work differently, making more data available and making our assumptions clear.

And any comments on those Himalayan glaciers and the impeccable peer-review process that allowed the ludicrous claims about them to be entered into the most recent IPCC Bible?

Anonymous said...

"Answer the first few FOI requests and there will be no deluge."


Dummy,
Can you even read?
The "sheer volume" is not a reference to FOI requests, it's a reference to correspondence from dimwits whipped into a frenzy by liars.
Why not get your own blog if you don't like the topics on this one?

Ti-Guy said...

The "sheer volume" is not a reference to FOI requests...

Haw haw haw.

Why do you even bother, Paul S? Is your life that barren that this is the only drama you have?

I'm going to insist DeSmogBlog re-instate you after you were banished for criminal-level cyber-harassment. They're the ones who specialise in The Deniers after all.

Frank said...

Penn State exonerates Penn State. How did the football team do this year?

Ti-Guy said...

Which one of you drunken Albertan freaks used to troll here under the pseudonym "Ding Dong Kyoto's Dead?"

Gerrard787 said...

Lenny, the few FOI's submitted were obstructed for years. Answer them and problem solved.

Ti, have you been over to DeSmog lately? They've banned every single commentator.

And how about those Himalayan glaciers? Next the IPCC will have to acknowledge there has been no acceleration of sea level rise in over a 100 years.

bigcitylib said...

Paul, That's crap. McI sent about 30 FOI demands over a couple of day period. And some of the other requests exhibited the hallmarks of pathological behavior. As decisions such as this one will eventually make clear.

Anonymous said...

Talk about pathological - Paul would have a nervous breakdown if he ever made a comment free of fabrications.

Maybe you should start your own blog if you want to change the channel, Dummy.

Ti-Guy said...

Ti, have you been over to DeSmog lately? They've banned every single commentator.

No they haven't. There are all kinds of comments over there.

Gawd, your lies. Will they ever stop?

Gerrard787 said...

Paul, That's crap. McI sent about 30 FOI demands over a couple of day period. - BCL

Evidence other then hearsay to support that claim? And how many of the FOI's were ever properly responded to? Any?

And some of the other requests exhibited the hallmarks of pathological behavior. - BCL

As diagnosed by climate scientists? Where you see pathology, most others see persistence.

And related to the investigation of Mann, we also have Phil Jones.

. . . emails reveal repeated and systematic attempts by him and his colleagues to block FoI requests from climate sceptics . . . These moves were . . . contrary to the spirit of scientific openness . . .

The Guardian
Fred Pearce
February 3, 2010

Anonymous said...

It's you that's short on evidence, Dummy.
Everything's the same with you denidiots - "I just thought of something all the scientists missed! I've got evidence the investigators didn't find! I am Dunning-Kruger incarnate! Opps, gotta go...dispatch has a fare for me at the Hooters on MacLeod Trail..."

Frank said...

Mann the rainmaker for Penn State? $6 mill over the last 13 years brought in by Mann and company, according to his CV. A Nittany Lion for sure.

Anonymous said...

Take that $6 mil and divide it amongst the co-recipients and their institutions. Now divide it by 13. Then compare it to Penn State's 1.5 Billion annual budget.
If you answered "rainmaker" you failed.
Math is hard, eh JAMS? Maybe you should just go shopping.

Ti-Guy said...

Where you see pathology, most others see persistence.

Too funny. This from the criminal cyber-harasser/stalker, Paul S(unstrum).

Holly Stick said...

Hey Paul, leave us alone or we will taunt you with signs!

http://www.desmogblog.com/comments-desmogblog-now-tightly-moderated

Ti-Guy said...

Blogs like DeSmogBlog should insist on real, verifiable identities.

Otherwise, obsessive and pathological cyber-harrassers like Paul S. will just ruin it for everyone, all the time.

Because that's what they set out to do.

John Mashey said...

It is well worth reading the actual PSU report.

"Given the sheer volume of the communications to Penn State, the similarity of their content and their sources, which included University alumni, federal and state politicians, and others, many of whom had had no relationship with Penn State,..."

Basically, had they gotten a bunch of random emails, they wouldn't have bothered ... but you can guess who the Federal politicians might be, and there are PA politicians who are friends of Richard Mellon Scaife, so...

BTW, it's well worth watching the first 5 minutes of talk. (Actually the whole talk is great, but he first 5 minutes is apropos the Mann topic.


Let's see, in the hierarchy of credibility, how do the following compare:
a) A bunch of random emails
AND
b) Don Kennedy, long-time Editor-in-Chief of Science and past President of Stanford

meddy said...

Paul

// Given the sheer volume //& // Penn State investigating itself is //
& I beleive the word "incoherent" appears a bit later on.
They had to examine the mass of verbigeration in order to construct a set of answerable accusations.
THEY did the investigation because the emails were sent to them &, being an independent institution,
they have procedures for that. For the final question, being a question about the culture of science, they will be canvassing outside opinions.


// Now . . . onto the IPCC. How are those Himalayan glaciers doing? //
http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/hires/blackcarbona.jpg

It's not just CO2.

Gerrard787 said...

It's you that's short on evidence, Dummy. - Lenny

Dummy? Now you've gone too far.

I'm not the one that peddled the fantasy that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035, the IPCC did.

This from the criminal cyber-harasser/stalker, Paul S(unstrum). - Ti

Oh yeah, that's me. International celebrity cyber-harasser/stalker/lover extraordinaire.

Blogs like DeSmogBlog should insist on real, verifiable identities.

Identities like "Ti-Guy".

Gerrard787 said...

It is well worth reading the actual PSU report. - John Mashey

Sure, a prestigious university investigating one of their star scientists. No chance of bias there, nosiree.

Basically, had they gotten a bunch of random emails, they wouldn't have bothered ...

Sort of like Toyota getting a bunch of random complaints of sudden acceleration. Nothing here folks, move along.

You are intentionally misrepresenting the issue John. It is not th flurry of e-mails, it has always been about obstructing FOI requests.

Ti-Guy said...

Blogs like DeSmogBlog should insist on real, verifiable identities.

Identities like "Ti-Guy".


I said DeSmogBlog where I've never registered.

Why would I at this point? Anything useful to be had in a conversation over there is negated by the pathological and criminal cyber-harassers such as yourself. And since you've been here for years, criminally and pathologically cyber-harassing everyone, I certainly don't need more of that.

Anonymous said...

"I'm not the one that peddled..."

You're confused, Dummy. We're talking about Michael Mann.

Gerrard787 said...

OK, talk about Michael Mann.

Do you think he should be subject to observing the law on FOI requests?

Or as a sycophantic climate toady do you believe special rules apply to climate scientists?

Anonymous said...

Have you stopped beating your wife yet, Dummy?

Ti-Guy said...

Why does Paul S. have two blogger accounts? He doesn't know why, but I don't believe him.

Do you still have two accounts (or perhaps even more than two), Paul?

Gerrard787 said...

Have you stopped beating your wife yet, Dummy? - Lenny

That's so lame someone should report it to BCL. Snark posted here should be at least marginally original.

Why does Paul S. have two blogger accounts? - Ti

Why do cows have four stomachs?

You used to delight me with your genuinely abusive invective Ti.

When did you lose your mojo?

Ti-Guy said...

Delight?

Man up, you hermaphrodite.

Anonymous said...

That wasn't snark, Dummy. I've provided no less evidence that you beat your wife than you've provided against Mann.
So do you think that you should be subject to laws prohibiting the beating of wives or do you think special rules apply to pig-ignorant Albertard mall drones?

Gerrard787 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

I wonder why Dumstrum missed the most important headline?:
Climate emails cannot destroy proof that humans are warming the planet

But thanks for the lesson in wingnut ethics, Dummy. Apparently they don't prevent winguts from stealing anthing that isn't nailed down.

Frank said...

India forms new climate change body - London Telegraph

"The Indian government has established its own body to monitor the effects of global warming because it “cannot rely” on the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the group headed by its own leading scientist Dr R.K Pachauri."

Another tribute to Pachauri's incompetence.

Gerrard787 said...

Score:
Paul S: 7, Lenny: 0