Prosecute the torture.

August 29, 2011

You May Have Missed This

Whilst I was away on vacation (A stop to see mom in Connecticut and then a trip up to Bar Harbor, Maine where there was some wicked good laab-stah every night) I missed reading about yet another exoneration about some never happened scientific misdeads:
Michael Mann, the Pennsylvania climate-change researcher caught in the flap surrounding e-mails hacked from a U.K. university server, was cleared of wrongdoing by an agency that promotes science.

Finding no "evidence of research misconduct," the Arlington, Va.-based National Science Foundation closed its inquiry into Mann, according to an Aug. 15 report from its inspector general. In February, Penn State University, where Mann is a professor of meteorology, exonerated him of suppressing or falsifying data, deleting e-mails and misusing privileged information.
And:
The report confirms findings from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's inspector general and a separate panel of seven scientists based at universities in the U.K., United States and Switzerland.
The original reporting can be found here at Bloomberg.com and you can read the NSF report here. The NSF report says this about those hacked East Anglia emails:
We reviewed the emails and concluded that nothing contained in them evidenced research misconduct within the definition in the NSF Research Misconduct Regulation. The University had been provided an extensive volume of emails from the Subject and determined that emails had not been deleted. We found no basis to conclude that the emails were evidence of research misconduct or that they pointed to such evidence
On the charge of data falsification the NSF concluded:
There is no specific evidence that the Subject falsified or fabricated any data and no evidence that his actions amounted to research misconduct.
But back to the Bloomberg reporting. The interesting part about it is where it was posted: The Tribune-Review.

Perhaps this will be more evidence of how the editorial board doesn't bother reading the news published in the Trib, but this is what Scaife's braintrust said of Mann only last summer:
Speaking about his infamous "hockey stick" global-temperature graph, Mann also told the BBC: "I always thought it was somewhat misplaced to make it a central icon of the climate change debate."

Funny, isn't it, how Mann only now objects to Al Gore making his "hockey stick" a household word via "An Inconvenient Truth" -- and to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change making such a big deal of that graph in its reports.

Only now -- after those Climategate e-mails documented improper data manipulation, and after other setbacks for the Church of Climatology's credibility -- does Mann border on 'fessing up. Perhaps his highly questionable "exoneration" by Penn State is loosening his lips.

Better late than never? Of course. But if he'd never warped genuine science to fit his predetermined "conclusions," he'd never have had to even think about, and wouldn't be verging on, full-blown backpedaling.
Given the Trib's news division has actually reported on Mann's exoneration, do you think the editorial braintrust will even bother to do some backpedaling itself?

Yea, me neither.

Good to be home, though.

5 comments:

Heir to the Throne said...

Whilst I was away on vacation (A stop to see mom in Connecticut and then a trip up to Bar Harbor, Maine where there was some wicked good laab-stah every night)
Nice to see you are keeping Carbon Footprint to a minimum.

Heir to the Throne said...

Exoneration ad nauseam
Another day, another full exoneration for the Hockey Team. This time it's the National Science Foundation who have cleared Mann on all charges following a review of the Penn State inquiry by the NSF's sleuths.

This bit made me laugh:

...no specific allegation or evidence of data fabrication or falsification was made to the University; rather, the University developed its allegation of data falsification based on a reading of publicly released emails...

We just, kinda, investigated some stuff...

EdHeath said...

So after screaming about what a fraud Michael Mann is, no one among you climate deniers could be bothered to actually make a specific charge, but Penn State went ahead and investigated Mann based on your ranting and raving. You couldn't be bothered to make a specific allegation, and then you whine that the University still investigated Mann? And after that you whine that they didn't use the allegations you didn't make?

As for your carbon footprint comment, what kind of hybrid do you drive? When was the last time you biked to work? And anyway what does that cheap little shot have to do with how the Trib distorts climate change science?

Ol' Froth said...

And this finding will not matter to the true believers like Heir. Its just like anti-vaxxers, creationists, 9-11 Truthers, Birthers. etc. They have their narrative and their belief, and no amount of evidence to the contrary will sway them. I'm reminded of the bumpersticker I occassionaly see: "God said it, I believe it, end of discussion." You cannot argue or persuede someone with that mindset.

As for Heir's little "carbon footprint" rant, never mind that you try and reduce electric usage, bike to work, walk when possible etc, if you use a car in a nation who's infrastructure is built around car use, then you're a hypocrit, even if your working to REDUCE the amount of driving you do. Conservatives are purists, they don't understand nuance.

EdHeath said...

You're right, Froth, Heir likes to pick away at any perceived anomaly, no matter how tangential. Mention a speech Al Gore gives, and out comes the line about the mansion in Tennessee. How can the mansion be carbon neutral (as apparently Al might have stated) when people who drive by see all the light blazing (they say)? Does Al think that buying carbon offsets really makes up for flying to conferences and speeches he gives (the climate change deniers ask)?

I say, who cares? I think everyone should try and do the easy things you can do that are not inconvenient, like using a cfl light bulb when you change your next burnt out bulb. When you go to replace a dying dish washer or laundry washer, in the next two or three years, buy the most energy efficient replacement you can. When you replace your car, look at a hybrid or at least an energy efficient compact car. These things will pay for themselves down the line and you will actually have more money.

I mean, you can be Ed Begley Jr and drive around in an electric car and have solar panels on your house, or even just use LED light bulbs. But for my life, an electric car is impractical, and LED light bulbs, while technically more efficient, still cost like $40 a bulb if they give off enough light. I'm mostly waiting until they come down to ten or maybe five dollars a bulbs, which, make no mistake, they will.

What I'm saying is you can fit energy conservation into your life without making big sacrifices and in fact you can save a good bit of money. You will be doing your part for climate change, fighting terrorism (by reducing the profits of oil producing entities like Alaska) and helping our grandchildren have access to still plentiful sources of energy like coal and oil. You can do that even if you are not Al Gore or Ed Begley Jr, and in fact no one expects or requires you to be Al Gore.

At the same time, if you want to go run around saying climate change doesn't exist, you are obliged to offer some proof (besides "God wouldn't do that", especially since God apparently would flood the world, according to you). If you can't offer proof, then at least don't be surprised when your gasoline is taxed at 100%, and you can't buy incandescent light bulbs any more. Squeezing your eyes shut, clicking your heels three times together and saying "dinosaurs and man walked the earth together" over and over just ain't gonna make it so. Join the 21st century, son.