Penn State University has concluded that there is no evidence to substantiate the claims made against climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann surrounding the emails stolen from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University.
An inquiry panel was set up early this year to look at allegations made by right-wing bloggers and media outlets against Penn State University climate scientist, Dr. Michael Mann, relating to the contents of emails stolen from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in London.
On all 4 of the allegations made against Dr. Mann the panel has concluded that there is no evidence to substantiate the claims.
However, the panel has recommended that the allegation that Dr. Mann "engaged 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," be further investigated.
Dr. Mann issued a statement today on the findings, saying that:
"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.
This is very much the vindication I expected since I am confident I have done nothing wrong.
I fully support the additional inquiry which may be the best way to remove any lingering doubts. I intend to cooperate fully in this matter – as I have since the beginning of the process."
The full report of the inquiry panel can be found here: Concerning the Allegations of Research Misconduct Against Dr. Michael E. Mann
Follow Kevin Grandia on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kgrandia
What they show?
Only how politisized science of climate change.
Calling all his oponents "liers", "deniers" he show only how politisized he.
Dear ReadYoung, please stop kindergarten game-stupid, not you stupid, etc.
Answer on dierect questions.
You didn't do it before and repeat your tactic again.
Naming others do not make you smarter, honest and something else, what you are not.
Show your knowledge.
What about swearing? I can do the same on English, Russian, Latvian and not so good many others languages.
"Answer on dierect [sic] questions."
Science works by research, not interrogation. You do not overturn other scientists' work by rhetoric. If you dispute their findings, the burden is on you to do your own research and prove that your findings are more correct.
Water does not cool the atmosphere. This is conclusively proven and understood by all legitimate scientists. It is not open for debate.
First, a summary of their lies:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/great-video-debunking-the_b_381881.html
That video contains *documentation* of Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly lying through their teeth, and it *explains* why their statements are lies, *challenging* the viewer to use Google (Scholar) to search the scientific literature for the word "trick" and its customary meaning therein.
But I know **you** won't bother to take any effort to find facts that disprove your preferred belief system, so I'll now briefly lay out the case, with links to documentation, that the phrase "hide the decline" was a reference to eliminating known-incorrect data from a larger set, not anything dishonest.
First, the "decline" is not a decline in temperature but a decline in the responsiveness of certain tree rings to known temperature change post-1960, making those tree rings poor proxies for temperature during that time. Therefore, the reason to "hide" that decline is to prevent a *spurious* decline in *responsiveness* from falsely implying temperatures which direct measurement disproved. That's GOOD SCIENCE.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/michael-mann-in-his-own-w_b_371414.html
If any of those "journalists" wanted to report the facts, they could have easily checked their premises against the original paper in which the alleged offense would have occurred. But none of them tried to be sure their story was true, or even plausible, before parroting the accusations all over the Internet, radio and teevee. As a result, what they reported were blatant, defamatory lies that have literally wasted millions of dollars worth of honest, qualified scientists' time.
It is difficult to be not so lazy to understand another point of view, to answer on correct questions about sites provided by supporters of mistakes of Al Gore &C, which mostly written by incompetent writers, to keep mind of incompetend supportes.
i didn't say "the'most prestigious'". i just said one for the most prestigious. he is a contributor to the ipcc. that makes him a pretty important scientist since he has a voice in an international body backed by the UN.
i'm not saying the review did anything wrong, but if the lapd conducted its own review into the cops in the rodney king case would anyone be satisfied with that answer? they weren't even happy with a review by the judicial system.
on a topic as politically charged and important as anthropomorphic global climate change it's imperative that there be no appearance of any impropriety, but there is so much of it lately.
How about a review by an independent panel before they run with the next story?
that aside. the thieves didn't assert anything, they merely published the emails. whether documents were stolen or not they say what they say. mann coming out in defense of himself and saying that they use "tricks" all the time is demeaning and belittling to an intelligent public. his elitist rhetoric basically said you're all too stupid to understand our jargon so don't even try.
what your question suggests is a step towards fascism. an independent board of review set-up by who and examining what? would it be a government panel or a government appointed panel? would they review every news story? the true review panel is the public. we decide what to watch based on what they produce.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/great-video-debunking-the_b_381881.html
So, what, they're all announcing on the front page of their reports that they're cheating? Or "trick" is used by scientists very much the same way as it is used by snow boarders, stunt bikers and skate boarders? Which interpretation of all the relevant facts is really more reasonable?
Your tax dollars at work.
It is hard to say, but probably dozens of students, administrators and suppliers of university equipment. Since Mann himself doesn't keep the money and there is no profit, it all goes to use.
“I know they’ve taken the time and spent hundreds of hours studying documents and interviewing people and looking at issues from all sides,” Spanier said.
The only interviews mentioned in the report (aside from Mann) are with Gerry North and Donald Kennedy, editor of Science. [Since they are required to provide a transcript or summary of all interviews, I presume that the Inquiry did not carry out any other interviews.] What does Donald Kennedy know about the matter? These two hardly constitute “looking at issues from all sides”. [A CA reader observed below that "North [at a Rice University event] admitted that he had not read any of the EAU e-mails and did not even know that software files were included in the release.”] They didn’t even talk to Wegman. Contrary to Spanier’s claim, they did not make the slightest effort to talk to any critic or even neutral observer. "
http://climateaudit.org/2010/02/03/the-mann-report/
Perhaps this has something to do with it.
But if you are a university, you are an intellectual elitist-type outfit, and not fit for deciding anything.
Funny, I notice that most climate change deniers are anti-intellectual, anti-reading, anti-education republican/independents who like to call themselves 'patriots'.
Let start debate with my first question.
In Wired, June 2008 Matt Power wrote:
"Ronald Reagan's infamous claim that "trees cause more polution than automobiles" contain a grain of truth... Canadian forests actually give up more carbon from decomposting woods, than they luck down in new growth"
If Ronald Reagan and Matt Power are correct, why we need trees?
Dr. Mann has been accused of four separate claims of misconduct. The first committee, whose findings are reported here, found no evidence supporting any of the four accusations. They judged that one of the four *accusations* is a matter of science, and correctly judged themselves unqualified to judge that matter, so they assigned a committee of scientists to consider that accusation, because of the nature of the *accusation* itself, not based on any finding on the evidence, neither of its credibility nor its lack of credibility.
As non-scientists, they admitted they are unqualified to opine on that fourth matter. You should all do the same in public, and if you have anything to say, say it to the science committee.
I'm getting a little confused. Are you talking about this board, or are you talking about the Obama Administration's comments about KSM and how he will be tried, convicted and executed?
I really think your comment about them as being raised in a barn, by swine, is a bit harsh.
Keep in mind this is the original author of the disreputable "hockey stick graph" that is at the heart of the IPCC reports and recommendations. This is as fraudulent as science gets and as accurately rebuffed as Piltdown Man was in it's day.
February 3, 2010
"The fact that glaciers in the Himalayan mountains are thinning is not disputed. However, few researchers have attempted to rigorously examine and quantify the causes. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory scientist Surabi Menon set out to isolate the impacts of the most commonly blamed culprit -- greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide -- from other particles in the air that may be causing the melting. Menon and her collaborators found that airborne black carbon aerosols, or soot, from India is a major contributor to the decline in snow and ice cover on the glaciers. "Our simulations showed greenhouse gases alone are not nearly enough to be responsible for the snow melt," says Menon, a physicist and staff scientist in Berkeley Lab's Environmental Energy Technologies Division. "Most of the change in snow and ice cover—about 90 percent—is from aerosols. Black carbon alone contributes at least 30 percent of this sum." The findings are significant because they point to a simple way to make a swift impact on the snow melt. "Carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for 100 years, but black carbon doesn't stay in the atmosphere for more than a few weeks, so the effects of controlling black carbon are much faster," Menon says. "If you control black carbon now, you're going to see an immediate effect."
http://www.physorg.com/news184435527.html
soot is!
drill baby drill and capture that soot..
I live in the Rocky Mountains and they were formed by glaciers advancing. I love to ski but I don't think I want the glaciers back.
It is so simple to be true.
Of course soot play it role in nature, especially for Himalayuas mounts.
We must remember many others things, what mankind made in continents.
We reduce evaporation of water on continents by cutting trees to free areas for crops production.
Monoculture of crops production also reduce evaporation of water.
Tilling of land and harvesting crops decrease reflection of direct sun radiation, the same as our housing, commercial buidings, roads, parking lots and many others human activities.
To fight these influence of human activities we have only one the cheapest tool - increase evaporation of water on continents.
Golly I'm shocked.
We need also realize that water droplets in the clouds are the best solvent for GHG and rain bring them to the land to feed the plants.
Increasing amount of evaporation on continents we will not only decrease amount of GHG in atmosphere, but also increase amound of rains on continents.
Trees are the best tools to do this jobs-their leaves have big combined areas to evaporate water by sun energy, they roots have possibilities to take water from the land better than roots of other plants.
Wood in the trees conserve sun energy for hundreds years without any batteries.
Mature forests do not produce new oxygen-Photosynthesis produce oxygen, old trees when they rot takes oxygen.
It is nothing wrong to cut old trees and use them in oven for electricity production and if all transportation system will be changed on electric we will be free from oil.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense
"In fact, water vapor is why rising CO2 has such a big effect on climate. CO2 absorbs some wavelengths of infrared that water does not so it independently adds heat to the atmosphere. As the temperature rises, more water vapor enters the atmosphere and multiplies CO2's greenhouse effect"
This statement confirms that water vapor play bigger role in heating the atmosphere even compare with CO2. (They multiplies CO2 greenhouse effect.)
If so and if you will agree that amount of water vapor over oceans is bigger than perhaps in desert of Africa on the same latitude, why?
WHY in desert are hotter?
If you will try honestly answer on this question you will found some others mistakes in site, which you provide.
Water vapor is lighter than most gases in atmosphere and because of that they have tendency to go up 2-7 miles close to space. Clouds are confirm this statements.
We need huge energy to evaporate water, because of that close to lakes, river, seas, oceans is always cooler in summer time..
In atmosphere we always have not only water vapor, but also-water DROPLETS in form of fog, clouds and particles, which together with dust, pollen, fumes, etc responsible for visibilities.
Evaporation of these particles produce water vapor which not only takes energy, but have tendency to go up to clouds level.
Condensation of water vapor on clouds level released energy back, but this energy is close to space and more easely go to space than on oceans level.
Properties of water actually cool the earth and only blind persons couldn't see that.
Climate change could be real, explanation why it is happen is completely wrong.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense
Analyse your reading!
I am sure that you have enough education to confront ideas, before you take it as real facts.
Your site is not scientific, but usual propaganda machine.
And by the way I am not AGW denier, but I have enough knowledge to understand that properties of water vapor actually cool the atmosphere and could be used as cheapest tool to fight any climate change, better, than properties of GHG in your site explanations.
http://www.grist.org/article/climate-scientists-dodge-the-subject-of-water-vapor/
http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2009/12/13/michael-mann-averaging-error-demo/.
His more recent 2008 version of the hockey stick used 1,036 proxies to build a temperature history of the Northern Hemisphere. If you look at the plots of all of these proxies you will find that the vast majority of them do not look like hockey sticks at all, but a few of them do. However, a sub-set of 71 proxies from Luterbacher looked very much like hockey sticks.
However, the Luterbacher proxies are not really proxies at all. They are geographical interpolations of a different proxies. The problem is that prior to about 1760 there are only about 10 very vague "documentary information" proxies which are used to make the early parts of all 71 of the Luterbacher proxies that Mann used. I call these the "amazing multiplying proxies."
These approximately ten vague proxies then weigh very heavily to help make the handle of the hockey stick look flat.
You can see the details of what I have described here:
http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2010/02/03/amazing-multiplying-hockey-stick-proxies/