PSU YAF Petitions for Independent Inquiry to Turn Up the Heat on Penn State Climategate Professor

Michael Mann - Hide the Decline

From PR Newswire

On February 3, 2010, the Pennsylvania State University (PSU) released a report on its internal inquiry of Professor Michael Mann, clearing him of any wrongdoing for his involvement in the “climategate” scandal.  Mann’s work, including the infamous “hockey stick graph,” concluded: “the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium.” Mann’s study has been debunked by the academic community, but has played a key role in aiding the “global warming” propaganda used in the attempt to pass legislation to end such warming effects.  PSU Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) has launched an online petition urging Penn State to preserve academic integrity and order an independent investigation of Mann and his role in climategate.

PSU YAF Chairman Samuel Settle said, “The university’s supposed independent inquiry report by Professor Mann’s colleagues clearly states they never wanted to do an inquiry and sounds more like a letter of recommendation for their friend Mann than a legitimate investigation of academic integrity. This report does not address the student and community concerns regarding the possible suppression of data by a faculty member.  This report by Penn State is a whitewash, nothing more.”  Settle added, “Many students go to college expecting to ‘stick it to the man,’ however, Penn State Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) is now ‘standing up to the Mann’ and his university lackeys calling for a fair, independent investigation of Mann and his involvement in the ‘Climategate’ scandal.”

Jordan Marks, YAF Executive Director, said, “Students are held to a high level of academic integrity on a daily basis and when the academic code of honesty is broken universities go to great lengths to investigate and administer justice.”  Marks continued, “The cover up of Professor Mann’s suppression of climate data because he is one of the faculty’s own is a disgrace to the academic community and an insult to the students who buy into the system of integrity and honesty. The fact that Mann falsified data to promote his personal agenda should be cause for him to stripped of his PhD and removed from his position as a Professor.”

To sign the PSU YAF online petition urging Penn State preserve academic integrity and order an independent investigation of Professor Mann, please go to

YAF is the nation’s oldest and most recognized conservative/libertarian youth activist organization. Founded on September 11, 1960 in Sharon, Connecticut at the home of William F. Buckley, Jr., YAF is a non-profit organization engaged in advocating public policies and activism consistent with The Sharon Statement. For more information call YAF’s national headquarters at 202-596-7923 or our visit our website at




SOURCE Young Americans for Freedom

35 Responses to PSU YAF Petitions for Independent Inquiry to Turn Up the Heat on Penn State Climategate Professor

  1. Rob N. Hood April 3, 2010 at 3:49 pm #

    The basis for current “militia” groups, brick throwing, gas-line cutting, threat-making, etc. is much the same as it had been under their earlier name, the KKK. Hatred of Jews, Catholics and African Americans, Muslims and now Liberals are the only real policy, now hidden behind Fox News/Sarah Palin ‘bumper sticker’ politics. The real story is being ‘left behind,’ disenfranchised and angry. Since the ‘trickle down’ economic theories of the Reagan years, America’s standard of living has steadily diminished while wealth has accumulated in the hands of the few, wealth and control of the press. Thus, the ignorant and angry have become the “Patriots” -diffusing any reexamination of the failed policies of the last 3 decades that have resulted in the wrong-headed attacking of those who would oppose the radical deregulations of America’s financial system that brought about the Bush era collapse.

  2. Hal Groar April 3, 2010 at 9:00 pm #

    Wow Rob! You equate the student organization Young Americans for Freedom to the KKK because they question the validity of a report on a tenured staffer. Man you take hard left turns! And about the trickle down economics of Reagan, I personally did quite well under that “theory”. As a matter of fact, my entire family and all of my friends flourished. I can’t think of a single person who, when they applied themselves, didn’t flourish. Even my parents, Died in the wool Democrats, did very well too. (Cursing Reagan’s name the whole way) We have had many a discussion about that very topic. I will say to you what I say to them…could you have done that well under Carter?

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD April 4, 2010 at 9:25 pm #

      Hal, Rob turns left so much he goes in circles! I was in 7th grade in 1979, and I remember the “malaise” of the Carter era. Reagan saved this country. No matter what the revisionist history that Rob reads says.

      • Rob N. Hood April 5, 2010 at 11:24 am #

        I was a Junior that year Neil- so please don’t try and tell everyone how politically savvy you were in 7th grade Neil. Talk about narcissism, Sheeesh!

        • Neil F. AGWD/BSD April 5, 2010 at 7:53 pm #

          A junior what? I never said anything about being politically savvy then… or now! I just said I remember what it was like then. Don’t you remember how bad it was? And who the heck was talking about narcissism? I really don’t see how you get that I am full of excessive self love from my statement above. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
          And how else do you expect your post to be interpereted, other than you equating this YAF group with the KKK, or at least a militia group? Why else would you plagiarise that particular statement? That also makes no sense whatsoever.

          • Dan McGrath April 5, 2010 at 7:56 pm #

            Please try to police yourselves in the comments. Every time someone breaks the rules, it creates work for me.

          • Neil F. AGWD/BSD April 5, 2010 at 8:48 pm #

            I was just askin’. I’d really like to know.

          • Dan McGrath April 5, 2010 at 9:44 pm #

            Fair enough. Try again.

          • Rob N. Hood April 6, 2010 at 7:45 am #

            Junior in high school. And yes, you did give the impression that you were aware of something significant at that time, other than the propaganda you have since read and like to post here as proof of your knowledge about reality. The difference between a 7th grader and a Junior in highshool is significant. That’s all I’m saying. Is that a reasonable statment? I think so.

    • Rob N. Hood April 5, 2010 at 11:22 am #

      And so now we’re all reaping the “benfits” of trickle down… Not to mention the bumps in the road along the way, no we’ll just forget about that…! And Hal, I didn’t equate the YAF with the KKK, you made that leap of supposition on your own. And we’ll never know how a Carter second term would have turned out, of course, and to make any supposition about that is absurd also. The fact is Reagan and/or his henchman stole that election. Read your history. Reagan could have/should have been impeached for that crime alone, not to mention all his others.

      • Neil F. AGWD/BSD April 5, 2010 at 8:43 pm #

        Note that there have been 4 presidents since Reagan. Right now we are “reaping” the “rewards” of a Democrat congress and a Democrat president.
        During Reagan’s presidency, federal income tax rates were lowered significantly with the signing of the bipartisan Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981.[107] Conversely, Congress raised some taxes in every year from 1981-1987 with such things as TEFRA, Social Security tax increases, and the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984.[108][109] Despite the fact that TEFRA was the “largest peacetime tax increase in American history,” Reagan is better known for his tax cuts.[109][110][111][112] Real gross domestic product (GDP) growth recovered strongly after the 1982 recession and grew during his eight years in office at an annual rate of 3.85% per year.[113] Unemployment peaked at 10.8% percent in December 1982—higher than any time since the Great Depression—then dropped during the rest of Reagan’s presidency.[114] Eighteen million new jobs were created, while inflation significantly decreased.[115] The net effect of all Reagan-era tax bills was a 1% decrease in government revenues when compared to Treasury Department revenue estimates from the Administration’s first post-enactment January budgets.[116] However, federal Income Tax receipts almost doubled from 1980 to 1989, rising from $308.7Bn to $549.0Bn.[117]

        During Jimmy Carter’s last year in office (1980), inflation averaged 12.5%, compared to 4.4% during Reagan’s last year in office (1988).[100] Over those eight years, the unemployment rate declined from 7.5% to 5.3%, hitting highs of 9.7% (1982) and 9.6% (1983) and averaging 7.5% during Reagan’s administration.[101]

        Once again Rob you have no idea what you are talking about.

      • Neil F. AGWD/BSD April 5, 2010 at 10:33 pm #

        This is the first time I have ever heard anybody suggest that Reagan stole the election. Why is it that when anyone you don’t like wins they stole it? Reagan won in a landslide in 1980 because Jimmy Carter was one of the worst presidents ever, if not the worst. Read your history.

        • Dan McGrath April 5, 2010 at 10:58 pm #

          Gotta agree. That’s pretty out there. I’m (perhaps morbidly) curious as to why Rob thinks this.

          • Neil F. AGWD/BSD April 6, 2010 at 5:34 am #

            Way, way out there.

  3. Neil F. AGWD/BSD April 4, 2010 at 11:09 am #

    Here is an exellent story I just want to share.
    And about this above post I think it is a good thing. I completely agree with their assessment. An analogy for you left wingers out there: having Mann’s friends investigate him is like having Carl Rove investigate Bush and Cheney!;-)

  4. paul wenum April 4, 2010 at 10:46 pm #

    Am I reading reality from Rob? Doubt it. If true, “Houston we have a problem.”

  5. Hal Groar April 5, 2010 at 8:59 pm #

    I think Rob doesn’t read the actual article. I think he wanders onto the site to throw out a comment that is gnawing at the base of his cranium. I (we) make the assumption he is trying to comment about the article, when in fact he is thinking about something totally different. Nothing to do with the site or article. He then assumes we attack him for his views and launch’s into a counter attack. We are all confused due to the lack of logic in his argument and we ignore him for a while. [edited]

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD April 5, 2010 at 10:22 pm #

      I think that is a fair assessment but he does assert that he is being relevent, and that what he posts has something to do with the topic. When we don’t make the connection he says we are playing dumb. I believe he is just here to derail and distract from the issue. I also believe that he does not do this for his own personal enjoyment, but does it at the behest of an organization. I also believe that there is more than one of them because if you look closely at his posts there are some differences in syntax, grammar, spelling, and style that suggest that there are at least two different people posting under that moniker. One of them is completly all Left all the time and the other can seem somewhat resonable….. at times. I used to think he was just schizophrenic But the better explaination is that there is more than one poster. Of course I could be wrong, but I don’t think I am. If this is his job though he actually does it pretty well… seeing as how we are talking about him, and not the article.

      • Neil F. AGWD/BSD April 7, 2010 at 9:11 pm #

        Dan this comment is still awaiting moderation. After reading it again I think it would not give me heartburn if you delete it entirely, because it is wild speculation on my part and I have no way to prove it. So give it the hachet already! I think I probably should not have written it in the first place.

        • Dan McGrath April 7, 2010 at 10:41 pm #

          Sorry. I added some words to the moderation list. One was “ass” and it started grabbing posts that had “assume” and “assert,” etc. That’s been fixed.

          • Neil F. AGWD/BSD April 8, 2010 at 8:27 pm #

            I wish you would have axed it. But there it is! Oh well. You said ass hu hu, hu hu (Beavis and Butthead)

  6. Cubanshamoo April 6, 2010 at 4:24 am #

    Hal, Rob never read the articles that we will like to discuss here. He have a Napolitano’s personality: give him a little chance and he twist everything into his irresolute phobia: freedom. He is so pathologically afected by this democratic value, that he turn irrational, childish and foolish without even realize it

  7. Neil F. AGWD/BSD April 6, 2010 at 5:41 am #

    I think that’s enough about Rob. I’m moving on to the next story.

  8. Rob N. Hood April 6, 2010 at 7:41 am #

    Hooo boy. Neil et al. are perfect examples of Right-wing personalities. Anger management…???

    Anyway, Reagan sabatoged any chance Carter had at winning a second term (yes there was economic malaise then, and yes mostly through creating bigger government and raising the country’s debt hugely Reagan did help some people with a better standzard of living). How did Reagan or his henchman manage that sabaotage to help ruin Carter? He (others on his behalf) negotiated with Iran re: the American hostages being held there, and probably even leaked the rescue plans that failed so miserably making Carter look even more weak. Then Presto! After the election (immediately after) the American hostages were freed (spelling?). Gee golly gosh, just a coincidence huh? It’s all fact, not conspiracy theory. It’s just not in the corporate history books of course. That was Reagan’s first impeachable crime. There were many other to follow, especially the Iran/Contra thing, which was really just an extension of that first deal/crime. You guys are in major denial about many realities.

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD April 6, 2010 at 7:02 pm #
      “Richard V. Allen, who was also supposed to have been in Paris with Bush, Casey and Gregg, was actually credited by Honegger with having `an airtight alibi, at least for October 19.’ He was interviewed on a live television program that day.”

  9. Dan April 6, 2010 at 8:53 am #

    Carter’s rescue plans failed because they were very risky (though if I were him, I probably would have tried it too) and a lot of things that could have gone wrong did go wrong and by the nature of the complicated mission, nothing could go wrong. It was a bit of Murphy’s Law. Why would you think Candidate Reagan would even know what the military was doing? Crazy conspiracy theory. I suppose Bush blew up the WTC, too.

    Carter sabotaged himself with his ignorance and inept advisors.

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD April 6, 2010 at 10:11 pm #

      Actually the mission was called off due to sand storms. The accident happened on the egress when a miscommunication led to a helicopter taking off and hitting a transport plane. I actually think that mission was a gutsy move by president Carter, but the failure only served to depress America’s mood even further. He took a gamble and lost. That mission is actually one thing I don’t hold against him.

  10. Rob N. Hood April 6, 2010 at 10:33 am #

    Perhaps, Dan, it is true that the rescuse mission was not sabotaged. No one has been able to verify that, that I know of at this time. But my other statements have been verified by reliable sources. These are the things that get buried intentionally by our so-called free press. It is, or would be, very naive for a person today to dismiss such things, especially when there is any actual verification. You may have to dig for it, work harder than most seem willing to do. Otherwise, a person can also simply pay close attention to what is happening currently, with an open mind and open eyes. “Read between the lines” without bias and with intelligence, not with prejudice. It sounds easy to do, but it isn’t, as is illustrated by many knee-jerk comments here about Obama and Liberals.

    Nixon did a similar thing with Vietnam as a candidate. Shocked? Look it up. Hardliners, ie. most Republicans, receive help from the military (ours and others) much more than Democrats do, or so history has demonstrated time and time again. It’s just simple fact/reality. Although now it appears that there is not much difference between our two parties. This is a process that has been evolving for a long time. The power of the military/corporate elite has grown and they can, most of the time, be very patient about it, which makes them very very dangerous to true freedom and justice.

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD April 8, 2010 at 8:42 pm #

      Geez Rob. Again you have got it backwards. The press didn’t cover anything up, in fact the press was instrumental in propagating the conspiracy theory.

      “A number of reporters had checked out the rumors that the Reagan campaign had persuaded the Iranians not to release the hostages before the election, but few found them credible. When Honegger’s book was published, few people except conspiracy-theory extremists were paying any attention to her scenario. It lay dormant until The New York Times decided to hype it in an extraordinary way on April 15, 1991. It devoted two-thirds of its op-ed paged to an article promoting it, and in the same issue ran a 24-column-inch story about the op-ed article. Both were distributed by the Times news service to papers throughout the country. Both also plugged a PBS Frontline program on the same subject that aired the next night. On April 17, Times columnist Leslie Gelb, a former Carter administration official who until recently edited the Times’ op-ed page, weighed in with a column in which he said, `Hardball politics is one thing. But Presidential candidates or their aides interfering in life-and-death, war-and-peace decisions of a sitting President is quite another. It is treachery.’ (`Treachery’ is different from treason, but in the context, treason was easily inferred.)

      The `October Surprise’ soon supplanted the Kennedy-compound rape case and Kitty Kelley’s biography of Nancy Reagan as the media’s scandal of choice. President Carter and others called for an investigation. House Speaker Thomas S. Foley termed the media reports `very disquieting,’ and said he had asked some of his colleagues to `explore informally’ whether there was enough evidence to justify an investigation. Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee were reported to be considering asking the attorney general to appoint a special prosecutor. The Washington Post, which had run a lengthy article exposing the weakness of the evidence, joined the bandwagon on April 29 with an editorial supporting an investigation.

      Leading the chorus was the author of the extraordinary op-ed article in The New York Times that had started the ball rolling–Gary Sick, the very same former Carter aide whose 1985 book shows how wacky Barbara Honegger’s conspiracy theory is. After describing in detail the intricate and difficult negotiations for the release of the hostages that were finally concluded on January 19, Sick’s book points out that the Iranians did not get a better deal by delaying the settlement until after the election.

      He says: `The Iranian leaders could reasonably argue that whatever the outcome, Iran was likely to get a better deal before the elections than after. . . . The package that finally resolved the issue some ten weeks later was, in several respects, less advantageous to Iran than the offer the United States had on the table in October.’ He elaborates, `In retrospect, it appeared the longer Iran negotiated the less it got, and those in Teheran who opposed the settlement were not shy in drawing attention to the very considerable financial concessions the Iranian team had accepted. Certainly, if anyone had proposed such an outcome when the talks began in September 1980, it would have been rejected as unthinkable.’ He notes that the Iranian negotiators didn’t even realize that Reagan would not take office the day after the election, but he comments that they were shrewd enough to realize that `a president assured of four years in office would be less likely to compromise than a president fighting for his political life.’ That explains why they reluctantly made their deal in the last hours of the Carter administration.”

      Rob when will you realize that the “history” that you read is not history. It is BS.

      • Rob N. Hood April 13, 2010 at 6:21 am #

        Oh, and the Iran-Contra scandal was not real either was it? Debunking anything that goes on behind political doors is very easy. your naievete is breathtaking.

  11. Paul Wenum April 6, 2010 at 6:55 pm #

    PSU doesn’t have a problem with Mann which is a major problem in my opinion. Sweep dust under the rug. Isn’t that what we are discussng? By the way, I was in my thirties running a Division of a company when you gents were having acne problems. Get back on point.

  12. Hal Groar April 6, 2010 at 7:47 pm #

    Paul you are right, the fact that PSU isn’t taking the time to sift through all the data tells me they don’t want to get to the truth. Isn’t college about getting to the truth without fear of reprisals? I know they lean to the left, especially after Viet Nam and Nixon, but how can they ignore all the signs of a cover up? Now, about the Carter time line, I was the chief bottle washer at a bakery back then and remember clearly Carters attempt at rescue. I felt heart broken when it failed and the choppers collided. I so wanted it to work. When Reagan got elected I remember the shift from the feeling that “America screwed the pooch and the hostages were probably going to die” to “Ronnie won, and we are coming after you!” It was as if a great weight was lifted from our shoulders. That was before they were released. I was 15 years old and I was already getting into politics, my parents hated that. (I was a teenager so I knew everything)

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD April 7, 2010 at 5:21 pm #

      Yeah, PSU is protecting their own. Why should should they even try to get to the truth? It will just make them look bad.

  13. paul wenum April 6, 2010 at 9:57 pm #

    Hal, didn’t we all know everything when we were young and then reality hit when we entered “The real world,” called working, paying your bills, being responsible to not only yourself but to your family, church and others in need. Hopefully those days are not gone. As to 79 and Carter, I voted for him. I, like you, was sick to my stomach when we failed to bring our people back. We underestimated the damage the sand would cause to our copters in the desert situation. President Reagan just happened to be at the right place at the right time and sometimes that’s life. Now, on to the subject at hand, not allowing Cap N Trade. Enough of my rantings from the past. Look forward my friend not back. Use the past as a compass going forward in the future. Caveat, “burn me once shame on you, burn me twice, shame on me.” I live by that as well as other statements. I never look back because it take’s your eye off the subject at hand.


  1. State Policy Blog » Blog Archive » CF Blog Round Up - April 15, 2010

    […] Global Climate Scam used some of our research for its Climategate blog. Posted in Contributors on April 15, 2010 […]

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.