Tuesday
Apr062010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Mann and the IG
Apr 6, 2010 Climate: Mann Fox News is reporting some interesting details of the second investigation into Michael Mann.
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.
I'm not sure why they refer to him as a skeptical inspector general though.
Reader Comments (16)
Sounds like a character from Gilbert & Sullivan musical
"I'm not sure why they refer to him as a sceptical inspector general though."
I think the reason for this is in the first paragraph you've quoted, specifically " Penn State's probe".
After "digesting" their conclusions even mosquito ( I thinking brain size) will be sceptical.
I have some experience with the NSF Inspector General. Briefly, I submitted an allegation of fraud against a tree-ring researcher, to the IG. The allegation was detailed and clear. The research involved millions in funds and several publications.
The IG subsequently issued a memorandum on the allegation. The memorandum comprised two paragraphs. One paragraph summarized the situation. The other said the IG had “determined that there was no evidence to support the allegation”. The determination was given without any basis.
Some details are at
http://www.informath.org/apprise/a4200.htm
I was told that this would happen. Possibly pressure from Senator Inhofe will persuade the IG to duty though.
"National Science Foundation, the primary funder of the research into global warming": it sounds as if the NSF is being asked whether it reckons that it was reckless with its funds by giving some to Mann. I dare say it might clear itself.
this is shocking:
6 April: UK Times: Ben Webster: Britain may block World Bank loan for coal plant in South Africa
The Government is considering blocking an aid project to provide reliable
coal-fired electricity for millions of South Africans after coming under
intense pressure from green groups in the run-up to the election.
On Thursday, Britain will cast the deciding vote on whether the World Bank
should grant a $3.7 billion (£2.4 billion) loan to allow South Africa to
build the Medupi coal plant. ..
Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and Christian Aid argue that the risk to
the world's climate from the plant's emissions outweighs the benefits of the
secure electricity it would supply. ...
The Government had been inclined to support the loan but is now wavering and
may vote against it in Washington on Thursday, partly because it does not
want to offend green supporters before the election.
The green groups argue that South Africa should focus instead on building
wind turbines, solar panels and other sources of renewable electricity.
These sources cost more than twice as much per unit of electricity compared
with coal, which South Africa has in abundance. ..
Britain, the bank's biggest donor and one of its five major shareholders, is
expected to determine the outcome of the vote because the US is likely to
abstain. Despite generating half its own electricity from coal, the US has
adopted new guidelines that include a strong assumption against approving
World Bank loans for coal plants in developing countries...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7088297.ece
In sane times, being skeptical would be part of the job description of an IG.
In the days of 'normative 'science'', not so much.
hmmm!
6 April: WaPo: David A. Fahrenthold: Scientists’ use of computer models to predict climate change is under attack
If policymakers don’t heed the models, “you’re throwing away information. And if you throw away information, then you know less about the future than we actually do,” said Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
“You can say, ‘You know what, I don’t trust the climate models, so I’m going to walk into the middle of the road with a blindfold on,’ ” Schmidt said. “But you know what, that’s not smart.” ..
“We’re never going to perfectly model reality. We would need a system as complicated as the world around us,” said Ken Fleischmann, a professor of information studies at the University of Maryland. He said scientists needed to make the uncertainties inherent in models clear: “You let people know: It’s a model. It’s not reality. We haven’t invented a crystal ball.”…
But Warren Meyer, a mechanical and aerospace engineer by training who blogs at http://www.climate-skeptic.com, said that climate models are highly flawed. He said the scientists who build them don’t know enough about solar cycles, ocean temperatures and other things that can nudge the earth’s temperature up or down. He said that because models produce results that sound impressively exact, they can give off an air of infallibility.
But, Meyer said — if the model isn’t built correctly — its results can be both precise-sounding and wrong.
“The hubris that can be associated with a model is amazing, because suddenly you take this sketchy understanding of a process, and you embody it in a model,” and it appears more trustworthy, Meyer said. “It’s almost like money laundering.” ..
If the models are as flawed as critics say, Schmidt said, “You have to ask yourself, ‘How come they work?’ ”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/05/AR2010040503722_pf.html
Whatever the OIG does the sound of the guns is getting nearer to this cabal of conspiratorial scientific activists. This won't go away for Mann, Jones et al they have sprung a leak and the will continue to take on water until the public are sure that their science is truthful and transparent. There is no doubt in my mind that there will be a rainbow of opinions on AGW in the climate science community and as time goes by those who've been bullied into silence will be emboldened and will speak of their uncertainties. At least I hope so, we need the science as pure as we can get it and there's not a doubt in my mind that those at the centre of this, the WG1 core team are giving us green propoganda.
Why skeptical ? Maybe he's a scientist.....
Pat
The most shocking aspect is the role of Christian Aid. Are there any Charities left who haven't turned into AGW promoters?
I'll stick with Medecins sans Frontieres, but I'll check them out next time.
Mann's mis-use of principal components was so bad that I wonder if he was trying to do a Sokal-like hoax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair) to expose the poor standards in climate science, but then he found it more lucrative to keep it going when he realised just how readily his stuff was accepted. Even after M&M exposed his joke.
“You can say, ‘You know what, I don’t trust the climate models, so I’m going to walk into the middle of the road with a blindfold on,’ ” Schmidt said. “But you know what, that’s not smart.”
This is my nomination for fatuous non-sequitur of the year.
"If the models are as flawed as critics say", Schmidt said, “You have to ask yourself, ‘How come they work?’ ”
Well Gavin, they work to get you a cushy job in a nice office with a fast computer and a generous index linked pension to look forward to. Perhaps that's what you mean.
But for predicing the climate they are pathetic. The proof of that just keeps mounting up. Did you perchance work on the 'computer models' that helped cause the financial melt down? They 'worked' about as well as your climate models.
Since I was born in December 1944, there is an impressive correlation of my age with the number of atom bombs existing in the world (the function is exponential and the goodness of fit is really awsome; p<0.0001). There is, however, a divergence since the 1990s, when my age kept advancing while the number of atom bombs stalled or declined. I am now working very hard, tinkering with the data and the model, to hide the decline.
Dreadnought,
"I'll stick with Medecins sans Frontieres, but I'll check them out next time."
When I cancelled my Oxfam, Action in Distress and Woodland Trust standing orders because of their, in my view, improper political activity, I rang up Medecins sans Frontieres to check on their position. I spoke to the chap who runs the UK operation and he confirmed that MSF use their donated money for the relief of suffering. So I signed up. I hope that helps.
Pat, shocking revelation considering the "bleeding hearts" involved, as well as the most Imperialist nation in the history of time.
Just proves that environmentalism is the direct antithesis to human civilization. And that mankind would be better off if all the "bleeding hearts" REALLY HAD bleeding hearts instead of oxymoronic names belying their anti-human agenda.
Friends of the Earth are only friends with an Earth that has no people on it. Especially Africans...
Yeah, I think "hard-nosed and humor-challenged" would be a better descriptive.