Top Climate Scientist's Exoneration Won't Be the Last Word

Michael Mann

Michael Mann

By Ed Barnes

When a Penn State board of inquiry unilaterally decided that Michael Mann had broken no rules in the climate-data scandal, global-warming alarmists breathed a sigh of relief, thinking the most damaging episode in their effort to save the planet was behind them. They were wrong.

The geology professor’s 1998 climate study, which showed a sharp increase in the world’s temperatures in the past century,  was seen by many as proof that climate change was rapidly occurring and that humans played a significant role in the change. Despite ongoing criticism, the study formed the backbone of global warming theories — until leaked e-mails cast fresh doubt on Mann’s methodology and integrity, notably “the trick” he used to make his data so compelling.

It was those e-mails, stolen from British university East Anglia’s climate study group, that sparked Penn State’s probe into Mann’s work. On Feb. 3, he was exonerated on three of four charges, and the investigation of the fourth charge will be concluded by June 3. 

But the final say will be in the hands of a skeptical inspector general at the National Science Foundation, the primary funder of the research into global warming. According to published documents obtained by FoxNews.com, the IG must determine whether Penn State’s investigation was adequate.

Read the rest of this story at Fox News.

39 Responses to Top Climate Scientist's Exoneration Won't Be the Last Word

  1. Blake July 8, 2010 at 11:11 pm #

    Paul is absolutely the strongest oracle ;-)

  2. paul wenum April 27, 2010 at 10:12 pm #

    Rob, I’ve been in France numerous times and I know what you mean. Don’t try to be cute. It’s not working. By the way, I’m lousy with french. Their language is to flowery. I’m Scot. We talk different. We tell it the way it is my friend!

  3. Rob N. Hood April 27, 2010 at 9:13 am #

    Touche’ and douche’.

  4. Cubanshamoo April 27, 2010 at 4:44 am #

    He even don’t know what he type in English, how you can believe Paul, that Rob could write or understand French? Forget it!!!! edited

    Editor’s note: Posting personal insults against other comentators in other languages won’t prevent them being deleted.

  5. paul wenum April 17, 2010 at 10:49 pm #

    Don’t speak french I’m a Scot.

  6. Rob N. Hood April 17, 2010 at 12:58 pm #

    Douche`

  7. paul wenum April 15, 2010 at 9:12 pm #

    Touche.’ Nice word. French perfume I assume? Kidding I am.

  8. paul wenum April 14, 2010 at 8:43 pm #

    Interesting read. What ever happened to Climate scam that we all deal with everyday?

  9. Hal Groar April 13, 2010 at 4:40 pm #

    Ok here it is, http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=6219&type=0

    If you read this you will understand why the “rate” is where it is. For example, US counts premature babies in their count where as other countries do not. If you measure apple’s to apple’s you find that the US is one of the best! Now Rob, I expect a retraction! The whole list is worthless!!

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD April 13, 2010 at 9:20 pm #

      Don’t hold your breath!

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD April 14, 2010 at 7:53 pm #

      I think this is all you have to read from that Hal; “Many underdeveloped countries do not have functional vital registration systems and infant mortality rates have to be estimated indirectly or through samples. In developed countries, comparisons of infant mortality rates are complicated by differences in medical practices and reporting requirements. These problems have raised questions about the validity of ranking infant mortality rates on an international scale.”
      Nuff said!

      • Rob N. Hood April 15, 2010 at 7:16 am #

        Same argument you use re: climate change. it is a very rudimentary and easy argument to make. Also one that most of the time cannot be refuted or verified, at least not very easily for the average person. Touche`

        • Neil F. AGWD/BSD April 15, 2010 at 10:17 pm #

          What argument? Do you mean using the truth to counter the BS?

          • Rob N. Hood April 24, 2010 at 7:02 pm #

            Yes- “truth” as in what you decide you’d like to be “the truth.” Which is whatever it is that makes you the most personally comfortable and allows you to continue doing whatever you are doing, so you don’t have to change one iota.

            Yes, That Truth.

  10. Hal Groar April 13, 2010 at 4:33 pm #

    Hey Rob I have heard that stat. about the infant mortality before. It’s BULL! I will return with a source, then I will expect you to retract the entire list! Fair? Good!

  11. Rob N. Hood April 13, 2010 at 7:17 am #

    Big corporations still get away with it. A stunning new analysis by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University shows how the IRS targets smaller corporations, while larger corporations that would yield more unpaid tax dollars go unaudited. Among corporations with assets over $250 million, the IRS reduced the number of audits by 22 percent and the number of hours spent auditing by 33 percent between 2005 and 2009. In an era of high deficits and higher concern over corporate malfeasance, there are no excuses. Congress even increased the number of full time auditors available for such work by 6 percent.

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD April 13, 2010 at 7:08 pm #

      Maybe the IRS agents are just lazy and don’t want to take on the big corporations because it would be too much work. I mean they are govt. union workers after all.

      • Rob N. Hood April 15, 2010 at 7:13 am #

        Interesting logic you use. Irrational logic.

        • Neil F. AGWD/BSD April 15, 2010 at 7:31 pm #

          Don’t you know a joke when you read one? Lighten up Francis.

          • Rob N. Hood April 17, 2010 at 5:33 pm #

            You weren’t really joking. Don’t lie. You think most if not all government employees are worthless. Funny how you don’t think that about all the right-wing political hacks who’ve been working for Uncle Sam most of their adult lives.

            You can make up all the excuses you want about those Myths, it’s all still true. You believe most if not all of them, and they are MYTHS perpetuated by MSM and professional right-wing propaganda generators.

            Maybe you should ask yourself why you believe those myths instead of making lame insults. That’s the real question that needs to be answered.

  12. Rob N. Hood April 13, 2010 at 6:04 am #

    Sure dismiss it, just cuz. That’s mature! Cuz it’s not a right-wing think tank? That’s ridiculous. These are FACTS, not factoids, not opinions, not “think tank” generated double speak.

    But I know how Facts can be displeasing, annoying, and inconvenient. Man up and deal with it… or not.

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD April 13, 2010 at 7:06 pm #

      Why did you leave out the title Rob? Nine Myths about Socialism in the US. Gee do you think maybe we would dismiss it from the title? I would. Why do you insist on posting socialist propaganda, and try to pass it off as facts? You are not fooling anyone.

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD April 13, 2010 at 9:18 pm #

      I did not dismiss it “just cuz”, I dismiss it because I don’t trust the source! A source that you failed to credit BTW. And duh, I know it’s not a right wing think tank, that was a joke! This was written by someone who infers constitutional rights to POW’s. Terrorist POW’s. And wants to investigate and prosecute Bush administration officials for torture. In their statement on their website they say they use “creative use of law as a positive force for social change”, that tells me volumes of what they are about. I think they may be using the creative use of statistics to implement social change with this nine myths of socialism in the U.S. Just like everything else progressive liberal lefties say, the truth is opposite the message which makes me think that these nine myths are probably true, and this was written to counter the truth. IMO.

  13. Neil F. AGWD/BSD April 12, 2010 at 9:31 pm #

    Myth #10 If rob believes it, it must be true!!;-]

  14. Rob N. Hood April 12, 2010 at 10:11 am #

    You don’t like facts do you… big surprise.

  15. cubanshamoo April 12, 2010 at 9:49 am #

    Oh sorry Rob, I think you most put a lot of black ink to your keyboard, I can’t read you.

  16. Rob N. Hood April 12, 2010 at 7:17 am #

    Sure, how about this:

    Myth #1. The US government is involved in class warfare attacking the rich to lift up the poor.

    There is a class war going on all right. But it is the rich against the rest of us and the rich are winning. The gap between the rich and everyone else is wider in the US than any of the 30 other countries surveyed. In fact, the top 10% in the US have a higher annual income than any other country. And the poorest 10% in the US are below the average of the other OECD countries. The rich in the U.S. have been rapidly leaving the middle class and poor behind since the 1980s.

    Myth #2. The US already has the greatest health care system in the world.

    Infant mortality in the US is 4th worst among OECD countries — better only than Mexico, Turkey and the Slovak Republic.

    Myth #3. There is less poverty in the US than anywhere.

    Child poverty in the US, at over 20% or one out of every five kids, is double the average of the 30 OECD countries.

    Myth #4. The US is generous in its treatment of families with children.

    The US ranks in the bottom half of countries in terms of financial benefits for families with children. Over half of the 30 OECD countries pay families with children cash benefits regardless of the income of the family. Some among those countries (e.g. Austria, France and Germany) pay additional benefits if the family is low-income, or one of the parents is unemployed.

    Myth #5. The US is very supportive of its workers.

    The US gives no paid leave for working mothers having children. Every single one of the other 30 OECD countries has some form of paid leave. The US ranks dead last in this. Over two thirds of the countries give some form of paid paternity leave. The US also gives no paid leave for fathers.

    In fact, it is only workers in the US who have no guaranteed days of paid leave at all. Korea is the next lowest to the US and it has a minimum of 8 paid annual days of leave. Most of the other 30 countries require a minimum of 20 days of annual paid leave for their workers.

    Myth #6. Poor people have more chance of becoming rich in the US than anywhere else.

    Social mobility (how children move up or down the economic ladder in comparison with their parents) in earnings, wages and education tends to be easier in Australia, Canada and Nordic countries like Denmark, Norway, and Finland, than in the US. That means more of the rich stay rich and more of the poor stay poor here in the US.

    Myth #7. The US spends generously on public education.

    In terms of spending for public education, the US is just about average among the 30 countries of the OECD. Educational achievement of US children, however, is 7th worst in the OECD. On public spending for childcare and early education, the US is in the bottom third.

    Myth #8. The US government is redistributing income from the rich to the poor.

    There is little redistribution of income by government in the U.S. in part because spending on social benefits like unemployment and family benefits is so low. Of the 30 countries in the OECD, only in Korea is the impact of governmental spending lower.

    Myth #9. The US generously gives foreign aid to countries across the world.

    The US gives the smallest percentage of aid of any of the developed countries in the OECD. In 2007 the US was tied for last with Greece. In 2008, we were tied for last with Japan.

    Despite the opinions of right wing folks, the facts say the US is not on the path towards socialism.

    But if socialism means the US would go down the path of being more generous with our babies, our children, our working families, our pregnant mothers, and our sisters and brothers across the world, I think we could all appreciate it.

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD April 12, 2010 at 8:50 pm #

      So what is your source for this? Are we supposed to believe this because you copied and pasted it from…..? Well I don’t know where you got this. Was it buzzflash again? I think it is all a bunch of bull, but I don’t really know if it is or not because I don’t know if I can trust the source. See this is why it is important to give credit where credit is due. Or was it information clearing house?

      Nine Myths about Socialism in the US
      By Bill Quigley

      How did I do that? I’m amazing. And who is Bill Quigley?

      Bill Quigley is Legal Director at the Center for Constitutional Rights and law professor at Loyola University New Orleans.

      Wow, I’m good. Well gee Rob you didn’t tell us that! Center for Constitutional Rights, you know that sounds like it might be a right wing think tank or something. Is it?
      No, it ain’t. Let’s see, How do they descibe themselves?

      The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil rights movements in the South, CCR is a non-profit legal and educational organization committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.

      Hmmm….. Creative use of law for social change? I’m gonna go out on a limb here, I don’t think they’re a right wing think tank.
      I don’t have the time or the interest to research all 9 of these myths, but, after looking at who, and what organization put this out, I am leaning towards not trusting it. No wonder you don’t source anything Rob, we might recognize it as socialist propaganda if you did.

  17. cubanshamoo April 9, 2010 at 6:40 am #

    Rob, can you type a bit stronger, I can read you!!!

  18. paul wenum April 8, 2010 at 11:33 pm #

    Neil, you said it all. Nature has ways of doing things that man cannot control, nor ever will. Floods, hurricanes, famine drought etc. It hasn’t changed for millions of years. The basic question as you and I both agree, is, is it man-made? The answer, based upon umpteen centuries of what was just stated, the answer is an emphatic no. What is the problem with simple common sense/logic? I must be getting on in years. I must be missing something called profit off the ignorant?

    • Rob N. Hood April 24, 2010 at 6:57 pm #

      There sure is Paul- it’s called O-I-L. Course you could just buy some Exxon stock.

  19. Hal Groar April 8, 2010 at 8:41 pm #

    Wow! Rob read the topic of conversation!(not the article) I am shocked! Now, on to the article…if they have an honest evaluation of Mr. Manns work I am all for it! Providing the truth is what they are after. I am afraid that we may never know what the truth is, too many agenda’s. I highly doubt Mr. Mann, I do not believe man has anything to do with any temperature change. I just wish there was a “non-alarmist” forecast for the earth. (if it’s even possible)

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD April 8, 2010 at 10:49 pm #

      Hal that is the problem I think. In the future there are going to be floods, hurricanes, famine, drought, climate change, earthquakes, hoards of locust, solar flares, meteor strikes… you name it. Bad things will happen. Why? Because the systems that we exist in are not completely stable, or static. We could all be fried tomorrow by a gamma ray burst from another solar system. I agree with you that climate change is not induced by man, but it will change. It always has, always will, even long after we are gone. This is why the whole AGW thing has been widely accepted. Humans live for a very short time in geologic terms, but we will live long enough to see some changes. I had a customer once that was talking about how the weather has changed so much from when he was a young boy. He was convinced that we were causing these changes. I tried to tell him that the climate changes naturally but he would not hear it. I did not try to press the point because I was just there to fix his refrigerator so I let it go, but I was struck by how convinced he was that AGW was real.
      AGW seems plausable to many, and that plausabilty is reinforced by the natural changes that do occur. The alarmists used natural changes to form their alarm. When this all started it was warming so it was not a stretch to say that it was our fault. All they had to do was to find a villian, and that villian was CO2. The one gas that is a by-product of virtually every process from manufacturing to transportation to even respiration. As it turns out if you control CO2 you control the world.
      What a perfect choice to be the Devil.
      But I do think that almost any alarmist forcast will come true if given enough time. Just not this one.

    • Rob N. Hood April 24, 2010 at 6:56 pm #

      It sure is nice to know you have such an open mind Hal. Gee, and I thought otherwise. Silly me.

  20. Rob N. Hood April 8, 2010 at 6:40 am #

    BILLINGS, Mont. – Glacier National Park has lost two more of its namesake moving icefields to climate change, which is shrinking the rivers of ice until they grind to a halt, a government researcher said Wednesday.

    Warmer temperatures have reduced the number of named glaciers in the northwestern Montana park to 25, said Dan Fagre said, an ecologist with the U.S. Geological Survey. He warned many of the rest of the glaciers may be gone by the end of the decade.

    “It’s continual,” Fagre said. “When we’re measuring glacier margins, by the time we go home the glacier is already smaller than what we’ve measured.”

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD April 8, 2010 at 10:23 am #

      Not exactly on topic, but much closer!
      I will not dispute the fact that the glaciers in the park are shrinking. They are. But is it due to climate change? Maybe, in fact probaly. Is this a smoking gun on human induced global warming? No, not at all. Why? Because, as we have covered this before, a glacier’s response time to climate changes has many factors. I am not going into that but this link: http://www.nichols.edu/departments/glacier/terminus_behavior_and_response_t.htm will give you a good idea of what I mean. As far as the glaciers in Glacier National Park, I found this animated history of glacial retreat there: http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/research/glacier_animation.gif And notice that the animation begins in 1890, and ends in 2100. Begins in 1890?!?!?! Not even the hardcore AGW believers think there was any AGW before 1940, yet the glaciers have been retreating for 50 years before AGW was to supposedly begin.
      But really, thanks for posting something somewhat related to the topic of the website Rob.

      • Neil F. AGWD/BSD April 9, 2010 at 10:50 pm #

        Did I say 1890? It’s actually 1850 when that animation begins the retreat of the glacier, a full 90 years before anyone has claimed that AGW started. 90!
        From -The Simpsons:
        Principle Skinner: Did you just call me a liar?
        Superintendant Chalmers: No, I said you were fired.
        Principle Skinner: Oh, that’s much worse!

      • Rob N. Hood April 24, 2010 at 6:55 pm #

        “NOT on topic”???!!!! Really Neil???????? And with a statment like that we are suppose to believe you are a rational and logical thinker?

  21. Neil F. AGWD/BSD April 7, 2010 at 11:30 pm #

    Circle the wagans men, the injuns are comin’!!!!

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes