Climate Scientist Cleared of Altering Data

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/02/sc...e.html?_r=1&hpClimate Scientist Cleared of Altering Data

By JUSTIN GILLIS

Published: July 1, 2010

An American scientist accused of manipulating research findings on climate science was cleared of that charge by his university on Thursday, the latest in a string of reports to find little substance in the allegations known as Climategate.
An investigative panel at Pennsylvania State University, weighing the question of whether the scientist, Michael E. Mann, had “seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities,” declared that he had not.
Dr. Mann said he was gratified by the findings, the second report from Penn State to clear him. An earlier report had exonerated him of related charges that he suppressed or falsified data, destroyed e-mail and misused confidential information.
The new report did criticize him on a minor point, saying that he had occasionally forwarded to colleagues copies of unpublished manuscripts without the explicit permission of their authors.
The allegations arose after private e-mail messages between Dr. Mann and other scientists were purloined from a computer at the University of East Anglia, in Britain, and posted on the Internet. In one, a British researcher called a data-adjustment procedure Dr. Mann used a “trick.”
The e-mail messages led climate-change skeptics to accuse mainstream researchers, including Dr. Mann, of deliberately manipulating the findings of climate science in order to strengthen their case that human activity is causing the earth to warm up.
“I’m aware, and many researchers now are keenly aware, of the depths to which the climate-change disinformation movement is willing to sink, to the point where they’re willing to criminally break into a university server and steal people’s personal e-mail messages,” Dr. Mann said in an interview.
Like the earlier report from Penn State, the new one was assailed Thursday by advocacy groups skeptical of the case for human-induced climate change.
“It’s no surprise that it’s a whitewash of Dr. Mann’s misconduct, because it was designed to be a whitewash,” said Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Washington advocacy group. He accused the panel of failing to interview important witnesses.
The panel did not try to vet the accuracy of the science published by Dr. Mann, including a famous finding that the temperature of the earth had jumped recently, compared with past climate inferred from indicators like tree rings. Instead, it examined his methodology — his analytical techniques, his willingness to share data with those skeptical of his findings and the like. The panel unanimously found his approach “well within the range of accepted practices.”
Two inquiries in Britain have largely exonerated the scientists there who were caught up in Climategate, though one report did offer minor criticism of statistical techniques.
Dr. Mann remains under investigation by the attorney general of Virginia for research he did at the University of Virginia.

This wont matter to the nay sayers. They will claim that the university is just covering their butt

Originally Posted by chris&barb

This wont matter to the nay sayers. They will claim that the university is just covering their butt

...and it sounds as though someone is trying to jeopardize the good Dr....

honestly I'm one of the nay sayers.

Originally Posted by rgrking

honestly I'm one of the nay sayers.

Nooooo!!! Not you Glen!




Well you're still a good guy

I just think that climate change is a natural thing that happens in this world. I know we may have contributed to is some, but there have been times when the carbon in the air was much worse than it is now.

I dont think any one realy knows ,we all have our opinions but no one seems to have concrete evidence either way,,, and I realy dont think any one will ever know , here is why, it is a WHAT IF senario , what if we hadnt used any oil any where , how much seapage would there be in the ocean, what if we use more from some places where seapage occures,,, will it help to increase purity of the water in that area in the future, what if what we see as being seapage is actualy the veins where the oil colects and is absorbed ,,what if these scientist are in it for the money because they realise that no one can prove either way, what if all the oils spills that we have had are responcible for the reefs crashing , what if those spills have contributed to more oil in the water colum then would have been there naturaly, what if that is the reason for the increased acidity in the oceans, and what if we were to start adding buffers to the ocean in mass quantities like folks do to their marine tanks to drop acidity levels ,surely there is something we could add to the detergent we use in laundry and industry that could add buffers of some sort,

I dont think any one realy knows,and I dont think that these scientis are concentrating on the real issue , only their cause ,, and this is more about financial gain on both sides, as long as we never know they both sides win.


Remember this one.
Spill cartography - Cedre

Then all the ships that were sunk in WWII days that were,,, and some still are full of leaking oil.

One thing we can say is that the gulf proves that oil kills marine life ,vegitation and water foul on a much faster and wider scale then any exaust fumes .


I read a article a while back about the big mess they had in Cali years ago , they said oil spewed like 1/2 mile high , said they could see it for 1 mile away and smell it for many miles, they say the earth for like 1/4 mile around the well is still like asphalt and still smells , I think I read it happend back in 1910 or something.


So history proves that oil isnt just absorbed back into the earth.

It seems that both sides have over welming evidence proving their case.


The issue I have is in regards to the clean up and spill prevention.

I believe they were clearing his ethical code of conduct, not his findings. And to those who think these scientists are wrong about it being human caused; do you really think they didn't consider natural causes of global warming? I'm sure these scientists have thought about more variables than anyone rejecting their findings. Natural warming, although it did happen before, has been thrown out as a reason for what is observed today. I know people like to admit that their own ideas are groundbreaking insight, but these researchers have scrutinized their data more rigorously than anyone else because their professional careers depend on it. Not only that, these studies have been passed through (several times) a panel of other researches who's only goal is to find fault with the study. That cannot be said for opposing claims by politicians.

Exactly ,,,, I realy dont think we will ever know the truth untill it happens,,

Scientist says Arctic getting colder - UPI.com


Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation - Telegraph


As far as the emails and the cover ups ,,,they are all online and ya can read them your self, one email mentioned covering up money that they spent on plane trips and who knows what ,,, the cash was supposed to be used to buy eq ,,,and then they hid the info from NOOA so they could get another grant.

So how did they conduct the test with out the eq??


Its all public record now, East Anglia Confirmed Emails from the Climate Research Unit - Searchable .




Ya truely dont know what is causing the acidity in the oceans to raise ,,I dont think ya can blame it all on spent fossil fuel ,, ya might on the excess oil in the water using the bacteria to eat it instead of its natural diet.

Who realy knows .

Like ya said everyone has a idea of some sort.

I don't think you can disprove an entire field of study based on the actions of a few. There are some sick doctors out there doing unethical things, does that make all medicine bogus? Should we go back to blood letting and consulting the shaman?

Originally Posted by chris&barb

This wont matter to the nay sayers. They will claim that the university is just covering their butt

Why wouldn't they? He brings in millions of dollars to the school and research.....When money gets envolved I tend to not trust anyone I don't care what political side of the spectrum your on or what side of the issue. The saying" money is the root of all evil" was created for a reason......

It's like you Chris investigating Barb, knowing she brings in millions of dollars what side are you gonna fall on? Can you truely be unbiased? In most every case the answer would be no.

The problem is very few actually say that the earth hasn't warmed almost all of the skeptics agree that it has....It's the causation that is in argument.

As far as "peer" review being the be all end all is garbage, it has been proven they have "peer" reviewed each others work. They also knew exactly who and what skeptics were researching and publishing only to have those research papers sent to known AGW provayers to "peer" review said works. The whole point of "peer"review is to review research papers without knowing who it is that did the research and in quite allot of cases that didn't happen only to have the research rejected. How can research that refutes your work be honestly "peer" reviewed by the one that is being refuted?....So the whole "peer" review process is suspect.

Originally Posted by spinycheek

I don't think you can disprove an entire field of study based on the actions of a few. There are some sick doctors out there doing unethical things, does that make all medicine bogus? Should we go back to blood letting and consulting the shaman?

You are absolutely correct you can't, but when the ones that are put up on a pedestal are doing science with a preconceived outcome based on how to get grant money, is it really pure science? No it's not and those are the ones that get the big dollars why? Because they help push the political agenda for a world wide carbon trading scheme.....There shouldn't be the mix of politics and science but in this case science has been infected and so have the ones doing the research.

It makes since that the glaciers have been melting since the ice age.

How can any one refute that?


Was there ever a science that said the glaciers were going to last for ever?

How do we know the oceans havent been gaining acidity since the iceage ?

Automobiles were not widely used untill the early 1900"s .

And more prodominantly only in the past 50 years.

One of the emails discussed the issue about the lack of trees during the coldest time period .


Some think the dinosaurs killed them selves because there was too much methane gass,, a few years ago it was CFC'C that were destroying the ozone layer that was responcible for global warming, CFC'C contain chlorine,Dont we treat and purify our munincipality waters around the globe with chlorine?

Chlorine is used in nearly all laundry .

I ,,,like many others around the world, are not necessarily a dis belivers just skeptical .

I just dont think they have proven much or have ever came up with any thing that actualy solves the problem .

Shuttng down the economy wont help .

I also believe the human race will adapt to what ever we need to do to solve this issue and that has been seen on a world basis.

How do we know that all the satalites signals being beamed back from space dont have a efect on the oceans??

It is a frequency being transmited back to earth ,that is not a normal part of the eco system isnt a microwave used to cook food?

There is a long way to go IMO.

I does make sense that by testing the atmosphere there would be more carbon and fossile gasses now then previously, but the issue still remains that many of these gasses are also consumed as a food and life sorce by the natural balance in nature,there seen to be a multitude of folks who have closed their minds to other posabilities.


You should live by a steel mill like I have for the past 1/2 century,, talk about everything from radiation contamination to oil spills to air quality issues ,, years ago they didnt have much but a smoke stack, now they have a filter system that seperates the dust and electricaly zaps it and turns it back into metal bbs that can be remelted and reused.


Science has came a long way but still has a long way to go IMO...


I agreee we have alterd that ecological ballance compaired to the natural balance of nature,the fact there are untold numbers of people here who breath has done the same thing.


I dont think there was ever thsi much of a population on the earth at any point in time .

The human race has also cut down more trees and eliminated a mass portion of the rain forest world wide.

There are way too many variables to say this is all because of fossile fuels,,.

During the jurasic period it is my understanding that a great deal of the earth was made up of fire and coverd with plant life , especialy around the equator , and the ice age cooled it off .

Maybe the other side is right , if we keep on we will create another ice age? LOL


I dont think we want that either , how will ya stay warm?

I read a lot of the emails mentioned, most of them seem to be more of a debate on how and what to say regarding old information and to keep others from documenting actual evidence aquired by scientific data then actual documnetd facts by the science being conducted by these scientist under scrutiny.

That was my take on it.

It is one thing to colect and offer opinions of past evidence then to offer any real facts about new evidence.


I dont discredit any of them them on their statment of facts ,,only that they didnt add much new data as evidence.


And any evidence and facts that disputed the situation was stifled .

Off topic if ya ever watch the shows like survivor or man vs wild it makes no diference where they are , there are allways litter and trash and some sort of destruction caused by man kind.


That is disturbing to me since that alone is controlable.


I am not trying to change any ones mind on the issue ,and this isJMO,,, we are free to believe what we want to untill the facts are chisled in stone.

Originally Posted by inlander

we are free to believe what we want

This is what truly is important. No one can take away your right to believe in what you chose.

That and working together for the same cause.

One more reason the dooms dayers lost credability, they stoped working together and demanded that everyone only believe what tey say was true.


If the emails prove anything they do prove that.

Originally Posted by rgrking

I just think that climate change is a natural thing that happens in this world. I know we may have contributed to is some, but there have been times when the carbon in the air was much worse than it is now.

the last time the atmospheric carbon increased this much was during the permian extinction. It is fact from isotopic data that humans are responsible for the present C02 concentrations.

Originally Posted by inlander

Exactly ,,,, I realy dont think we will ever know the truth untill it happens,,

Scientist says Arctic getting colder - UPI.com


Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation - Telegraph


As far as the emails and the cover ups ,,,they are all online and ya can read them your self, one email mentioned covering up money that they spent on plane trips and who knows what ,,, the cash was supposed to be used to buy eq ,,,and then they hid the info from NOOA so they could get another grant.

So how did they conduct the test with out the eq??


Its all public record now, East Anglia Confirmed Emails from the Climate Research Unit - Searchable .




Ya truely dont know what is causing the acidity in the oceans to raise ,,I dont think ya can blame it all on spent fossil fuel ,, ya might on the excess oil in the water using the bacteria to eat it instead of its natural diet.

Who realy knows .

Like ya said everyone has a idea of some sort.

i wouldn't personally ascribe and creditability to english tabloids or random websites. there clearly wasn't anything extraordinary going on within the emails; just the typical scientific process. these sceientists have been vindicated; it's extremely troubling to me to see people completely ignorant to the impeding disaster this planet is facing.

Originally Posted by andrewk529

i wouldn't personally ascribe and creditability to english tabloids or random websites. there clearly wasn't anything extraordinary going on within the emails; just the typical scientific process. these sceientists have been vindicated; it's extremely troubling to me to see people completely ignorant to the impeding disaster this planet is facing.

------------------------------

True , verry true ,and right to the point,,, I could be wrong ,,however,,I dont think any one truely disagrees in the facts that we are more then likely contributing to some sort of change ,,,or cycle,,,, in our ecology,, just like our SW tanks have to change there cycle to adapt to changes we make to them,,, .

That is JMO,,, I believe there has been extensive research from scientist around the world,, not just what has been published in the USA ,,,,,that has contradicted much evidence on both sides ,,,, however when you look at the issue of political motivation that is involved in this series of emails and the money involved ,,VS ,, the results of the findings,,,, one can only come to the obvious conclusion that a few have become verry wealthy and the only suggestion so far has been for everyone to go broke .
-----------------------------
,,,,Off topic,,, there is now all of a sudden a issue of those little fish in Cali who are supposed to be going extinct,, and yet the canals system has been operationg for nearly a century and those little fish are still there, The only sugestion was to shut down the agricultural industry,, There was no second opinion or any mention of storage facilities that could have been built that would have colected and saved the water during the time these fish were not doing there thing, only shut it down.

That is not science working for the better of the world .

-----------------------------

While I agree strongly that our natural resorces could be controled monitored quaried and stored and used ,,,in a much mor responcible way,,,, I dont believe that a few people becoming wealthy while others lives are destroyed will stop the issue of the C02 in the atmosphere.

It is obvious that CFC'S didnt stop it like we were all told.

Especialy when these same peeps who are crying wolf are using more fuel and energy and contributing to the problem then any one else on earth it makes ya wonder if they realy believe in their own words.

Statistics say that over 50% of the people on earth have never recieved or made a phone call and dont have electricity or runing water.


All I am saying is,,,,as long as we deny the findings of ALL scientific data and become partisan to one side , then it is no longer the exploration of science,and it opens the door for manipulation.


If these scientist were actualy scientist then they would open their doors for both sides and actualy conduct studies to rule out all posabilities , not supress the facts for their personal agenda and quote and rely extensivly on antiquidated data.

That goes for both sides IMO.

As members of a new global society it is verry important for all of us to know what is being forced on us has viable merit.

Any legitimate scientist working for the betterment of the world should feel the same way..

Wouldnt you agree?

JMO
---------------------------------------

"Salus populi suprema est lex" (The good of the people is the chief law)
Cicero 106 - 43 BC

Originally Posted by inlander

All I am saying is,,,,as long as we deny the findings of ALL scientific data and become partisan to one side , then it is no longer the exploration of science,and it opens the door for manipulation.


If these scientist were actualy scientist then they would open their doors for both sides and actualy conduct studies to rule out all posabilities , not supress the facts for their personal agenda and quote and rely extensivly on antiquidated data.

The reason the opposing views are so often rejected is that they have a very different idea about what science actually is. Science is only taken seriously if there is actual significant data to back it up, which is something that has remained elusive in the anti-global warming side.

And they have ruled out other possibilities, hence the reason they've come to the conclusion that it is human caused. I think the real issue is that most of the researchers don't really care about the politics and just want to conduct their research. The problem is then, that their research gets buried in scientific journals which only a very small percentage of the population actually reads. All the information you seek is there (including recent research), and publicly available, you just have to dig into school archives to find it.

You will never find real facts and arguments about this from any media outlet, it's something that unfortunately has to be read yourself, from real scientific journals.