Penn States inquiry into possible misconduct by Mann moves forward. They considered 4 possible charges, and find one warrants further investigation. From Penn state
In looking at four possible allegations of research misconduct, the committee determined that further investigation is warranted for one of those allegations. The recommended investigation will focus on determining if Mann “engaged in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities.” A full report (http://www.research.psu.edu/orp) concerning the allegations and the findings of the inquiry committee has been submitted.
Any idea of the three charges that didn’t warrant further investigation?
The enquiry asked Mann:
I do not see why any university would risk it’s good name, it’s future status, or anthing at all, on what amounts to a nobody pretending to be a scientist. Why why why?
Andrew
Bob, it’s all laid out in the 10-page report.
http://www.research.psu.edu/orp/Findings_Mann_Inquiry.pdf
I suggest we all read it carefully before commenting.
Nah, stuff that. The ‘report’ repeats the lie that the ‘trick’ was a legitimate statistical method. Do these idiots not understand the meaning of the word ‘hide’?
And the wide-ranging interviews that were promised seem to consist of interviewing The Mann Himself.
PaulM:
Mike’s “trick” was to append instrumental records to proxy reconstructions. His paper didn’t truncate the Briffa reconstruction; Jones was the one who “used Mike’s trick to ‘hide the decline'”.
“Finding 1” is enough to make my blood boil.
Mann did not hide the decline.
I was a bit surprised that they let charge 3 go. I think they could have benefitted from input from others on that issue.
However, they basically are investigating the thing that is near and dear to my heart. the public trust.
Time to write.
Step 1: Call for investigation of Michael Mann.
Step 2: If investigation criticizes Mann, use it against him.
Step 3: if investigation exonerates Mann, claim a conspiracy.
Step 4: Go to Step 1.
The report is an interesting read. They are focusing (correctly) on the relevant issue: did Mann conduct himself within the pale or not. I think that will be a very close call one way or the other. If they say “he’s a swell guy” and did nothing wrong, then all hell will break loose for Penn State with state funding and state government inquiries. If they say “he’s a miserable sob” and not a suitable person to work for Penn State, then all hell will break loose with the left leaning faculty. Finding the wrist slap that will satisfy everyone is not going to be easy.
But I do hope Mann sweats this one a bit; there is nobody more deserving.
They explicitly stated an “out” to the one issue they’re going to investigate further:
‘…All disciplines and scientific fields work within broad bounds of “accepted scientific†practice that apply to all researchers. However, within different disciplines of science there are additional elements of accepted practice that may be specific to those disciplines and therefore are different from those of other disciplines and fields. For example, accepted practices in a field of pure mathematics, such as number theory, may differ markedly from those in a field such as socio-biology…’
So the panel can find that he acted inappropriately by their standards but conclude, “Well, accepted scientific practice seems to be different in climate science due to the politics involved, so he accept appropriately enough for his field…”
Re: steven mosher (Feb 3 13:05),
“Mann did not hide the decline.”
Not true. Mann’s trick is hiding a decline also in MBH9X. If you smooth the MBH99 reconstruction, no matter what end point convention you use, the smoothed reconstruction will point downwards. By appending the instrumental temperatures prior smoothing, the smooth points upwards.
“The so-called “trick†was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field.”
“No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto†any reconstrution.”
Jean S:
Mann’s opinion of the matter was that
“In our case, our proxy data simply ended in 1980 (because many of the ice cores, corals, and tree-ring records drop out in the late 70s and early 80s). There was no issue of divergence. All we did was to show our reconstruction (which ends in 1980) along w/ the full instrumental record (which went through the mid 1990s), and both were clearly labeled. The trick was simply showing both datasets together, so that the context for the proxy reconstruction (in terms of recent warming) was clear.”
Whether or not a smoothing function would point slightly upward or downward at the end is a bit of a matter if interpretation, and I’m personally not to concerned with showing both actual temp records and proxy reconstructions given the fact that proxy reconstructions have fairly poor decadal resolutions and warming over the past few decades has been so dramatic. I can understand that you and others might object to it, but surely it doesn’t rise to the level of clear misconduct.
“His work and public pronouncements in regard to it fall within the boundaries of accepted practice in his discipline.”
If this is the conclusion:
Wouldn’t that be more damning than finding that he had ventured beyond the boundaries of a higher level of expectation?
Re: Zeke Hausfather (Feb 3 13:47),
apparently you do not understand what mike’s trick is, and you take mike’s lie as a fact. One more time: the trick is not to show instrumental values and the reconstruction values side by side, the trick is to append the reconstruction with the instrumental values prior smoothing. How many times it needs to be repeated before you get it?
throwing mud, hoping that something sticks.
5 scientists reviewing Mann, instead of doing proper work.
denialists score 1 point, science scores zero points.
minor hope that investigation by chance turns up something negative, that might remove Mann.
denialists score 1 point, science scores zero points.
not a good day for science.
One comment from WUWT re the Penn State inquiry:
Tom G(ologist) (10:52:25) :
The inquiry is really not on the integrity of his scientific paper so a mathematician is not requisite on the panel. Many scientists publish papers which are later found to be wanting, or to have used a technique (trick) to manipulate data. I don’t think we should dwell on whether his science was right or wrong. The university is not looking at that. Science proceeds by scientists making wrong steps and then making corrections when the problem is identified. The university is looking for ethical and legal wrong-doing. Apart from his academic ‘trick’ Mann is correct in that he did not delete emails at Jones’ request and many other exonerations he will attempt. I think the stumbling block for him is going to be on some nebulous points and the outcome is far from certain.
Personally, I think he is a thin-skinned creep and a discredit to the geosciences (and I am the President of the Pennsylvania State Licensing Boards for Professional Geologists – close to Mann’s home, so to speak) but, as a college educator (in a different university) I understand how Penn State will be viewing this. Let’s see wht transpires, but I will caution that if you are hoping for a big defeat of the Mann-heim steamroller, begin preparing yourself now for a ruling you will probably find disappointing.
As a reminder, the PA state senate higher education committee has already stated that if it is dissatisfied with the university inquiry, it plans a separate investigation of its own.
sod:
I don’t see any denialists in this mix. On the one hand I find scientists and observers who believe in the scientific method, open sharing of data and good faith peer review, and on the other hand I find a man who sees conspiracy in every criticism, aims to restrict peer review to his own friends & allies, and like a lazy undergraduate dreams of grading his own papers.
Science is sometimes slow in correcting itself just see the how long it has taken for lancet to retract the Wakefield paper
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8493753.stm
For those who don’t know the story Andrew Wakefield published a paper (1998) on vacination and autism in the peer reviewed Lancet (journal of the Brisitsh Medical Assoc) and usually considered “The Nature” of medicine that was clearly false and misleading it has taken almost 12 years to be retracted. Sounds a bit like Jones and the China UHI paper but with Nature moving even slower.
“For those who don’t know the story Andrew Wakefield published a paper (1998) on vacination and autism in the peer reviewed Lancet (journal of the Brisitsh Medical Assoc) and usually considered “The Nature†of medicine that was clearly false and misleading it has taken almost 12 years to be retracted. Sounds a bit like Jones and the China UHI paper but with Nature moving even slower.”
Good news indeed. Too bad to anti-vaxers use basically the same techniques as the climate skeptics. (Though Soon and Balinus 2003 didn’t last nearly as long before being retracted by the journal).
Boris:
“Step 1: Call for investigation of Michael Mann.
Step 2: If investigation criticizes Mann, use it against him.
Step 3: if investigation exonerates Mann, claim a conspiracy.
Step 4: Go to Step 1.”
Nobody serious is claiming 3.
The investigation is moving forward. As with all investigations there are some parts that may have come down differently. As with all investigations there are going to be questions about the people involved and their qualifications. I don’t see anyone claiming that the Penn State committee got together and said “we have to clear Mann” When congressional ethics committee investigate their own, do the results tend to swing in the members favor? probably. When police investigate themselves, do they tend to slant things to protect their brethren? probably. Are white juries more prone to let white criminals off? probably.
Is there anything to suggest that an Penn state investigation of one of its own, will have a higher standard of objectivity than any of these other examples? no.
The correct reply is by the main players see CA
Boris, could you provide a reference for that retraction?
I’m interested in what “technique” you’re using.
Thanks
Boris,
thanks for explaining how you warmers would do it if Mann were on the other side!!
sod talks about “denialists” (#31951). In the particular case of the publication record of Michael Mann, that’s an apt turn of phrase.
sod, and you too, Boris: would you offer an opinion of the use by Mann et al (PNAS, 2008) of the Tiljander proxies? Brief summary as a prior thread’s #31907, or use Google.
Do you deny that Mann miscalibrated two of the proxies and used them in an upside-down orientation? Do you deny that not a single AGW-Consensus climate scientist has dissented from the profession’s public support of Mann on this point?
Tiljander proxy use is not being addressed by the Penn State commission. But the lockstep silence and defense of the indefensible is a telling illustration of the team-sports mentality of the AGW-Consensus community. I expect it to be in full flower when the committee reports, however their report may read.
Sod,
you missed the last step.
Politicised “scientists” exonerate Mann.
Deniers 1 Science 0
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Given this key e-mail exchange:
The finding from Penn State seems a bit…carefully worded.
Note their focus exclussively on whether Mann deleted his own e-mails. Did they look for an e-mail where he passed on Jones’ request for “Gene” to delete his?
After all, the allegation was that Mann “participated” in an effort to tamper with information related to AR4.
Boris (Comment#31980) February 3rd, 2010 at 5:03 pm
“Too bad to anti-vaxers use basically the same techniques as the climate skeptics. (Though Soon and Balinus 2003 didn’t last nearly as long before being retracted by the journal).”
In every profession there are liars, cons, cheats and even some quite honest folks that miss out on important facts. People have to sort out who to believe with too little information. Calling someone an ‘anti-vaxer’ because they are skeptical doesn’t make a case for anything.
Let me quote Jim Hansen from 2000
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2000/2000_Hansen_etal_2.pdf
“Non-CO2 GHGs. These gases are probably the main cause of
observed global warming, with CH4 causing the largest net
climate forcing.”
So if I say…I don’t believe CO2 is the main cause of Global Warming does that make me a denier? Jim Hansen told me this 8 years ago in a paper…I believed him. That was before anyone could have predicted temperatures have stopped appreciably rising.
Harrywr2,
Methinks you should read the paper you are citing a bit more closely. Comparing Figure One in Hansen’s paper to Figure 2.20a in the AR4 (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf) may be instructive.
Zeke,
Where in the PNAS paper do Hansen et al. contradict what Harry is saying?
The paper specificallys says that non-CO2 GHGs outweigh the effects of burning fossil fuels. It’s right in the abstract.
The figure you cite from the IPCC report also shows that aerosols offset a significant portion of CO2 forcing. Hansen et al. break out the aerosols so as to account for those specifically from fossil fuel burning.
Also, I wonder how the recent findings about stratospheric water vapor will change Figure 2.20a.
Nice “skeptic” spin to this story.
“The Enquiry into Mann’s alleged misconduct moves forward.”
Here are the full findings, and what you left out. Only Allegation 4 is being referred to another committee. Mann was cleared entirely of the first 3 allegations.
http://www.research.psu.edu/orp/Findings_Mann_Inquiry.pdf
Finding 1. After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data. While a perception has been created in the weeks after the CRU emails were made public that Dr. Mann has engaged in the suppression or falsification of data, there is no credible evidence that he ever did so, and certainly not while at Penn State. In fact to the contrary, in instances that have been focused upon by some as indicating falsification of data, for example in the use of a “trick†to manipulate the data, this is explained as a discussion among Dr. Jones and others including Dr. Mann about how best to put together a graph for a World Meteorological Organization (WMO) report. They were not falsifying data; they were trying to construct an understandable graph for those who were not experts in the field. The so-called “trickâ€1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field.
Finding 2. After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data related to AR4, as suggested by Dr. Phil Jones. Dr. Mann has stated that he did not delete emails in response to Dr. Jones’ request. Further, Dr. Mann produced upon request a full archive of his emails in and around the time of the preparation of AR4. The archive contained e-mails related to AR4.
Finding 3. After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any misuse of privileged or confidential information available to him in his capacity as an academic scholar. In media reports and blogs about Dr. Mann and other paleoclimatologists, those who are named in the CRU email files are purported to have been engaged in conspiratorial discussions indicative of a misuse of privileged or confidential information. Although it is not clear where the exact accusation lies in this with respect to Dr. Mann, it is inferred that the emails prove the case. Those who have formed this view feel that, in their capacity as reviewers, Dr. Mann and his colleagues had early access to manuscripts from other authors with whom they disagreed, and that they could somehow act on those to reject them for publication. Actually, when one does due diligence on this matter, and asks about what papers were involved, one finds that enormous confusion has been caused by interpretations of the emails and their content. In some cases, the discussion and related debate centered on papers that were about to emerge which members of the purported conspiracy had written, but which were simply under embargo. In other cases, the discussion and related debate centered on papers that have emerged in otherwise notable scientific journals, which they deemed to have been published with a lower standard of scholarly and scientific scrutiny. The committee found no research misconduct in this. Science often involves different groups who have very different points of view, arguing for the intellectual dominance of their viewpoint, so that that viewpoint becomes the canonical one. We point to Kuhn2 as an authority on how science is done, before it is accepted as “settled.â€
Finding 4. After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee could not make a definitive finding whether there exists any evidence to substantiate that Dr. Mann did engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities. It is the case that there has been a public outcry from some quarters that Dr. Mann and his colleagues did deviate from what some observers claim to be standard academic practice. All disciplines and scientific fields work within broad bounds of “accepted scientific†practice that apply to all researchers. However, within different disciplines of science there are additional elements of accepted practice that may be specific to those disciplines and therefore are different from those of other disciplines and fields. For example, accepted practices in a field of pure mathematics, such as number theory, may differ markedly from those in a field such as socio-biology. This is axiomatic. That said, the committee could not make a definitive finding on this allegation for reasons that follow.
—
Since Finding 4 addresses a relatively soft (less serious than the others) and subjective allegation, it’s not a surprise they didn’t make a definitive conclusion. Note also the sections in blue. I can think of few “skeptics” that meets such high standards (such as “They accept the obligation to exercise critical self-discipline and judgment in using, extending, and transmitting knowledge. They practice intellectual honesty.”, in public or not. To my knowledge, Mann has met these high standards, although no person (scientist or not) is a saint, especially during candid exchanges in personal correspondence.
Boris,
I think they’re pretty close to Step 3, pending official results of Allegation 4. A climate scientist wasn’t lynched. Must be a bad day for “skeptics”.
NewYorkJ (Comment#32005)
February 3rd, 2010 at 6:35 pm
I’ve commented on Finding 2 above.
Care to read and engage rather than cut and paste?
Maybe Mann lied to Jones?
NewYork J (#32005) —
It’s a fairly safe bet that most of the audience here was already aware of the PSU committee’s four findings. Conserve electrons!
For reasons given above (Comment #31990, February 3rd, 2010 at 5:42 pm), I find AGW-Consensus rah-rah support of Mann’s scientific conduct to be unfortunate. Even allowing that he may well be not-guilty of the charges under consideration, given their narrow framing and the limits to the committee’s efforts.
Do you care to offer an opinion on Prof. Mann’s performance in the matter of the Tiljander proxies?
Re: NewYorkJ (Feb 3 18:35),
Penn States web page also left all that out for brevity. Were they indulging in skeptic spin too?
Sometimes short post are just announcing a bullet point. Whether you like it or not, the decision to pursue one of the allegations is the bullet point. Had they decided to pursue one or four, those would have been the bullet points.
John M,
My point is that the conclusion in question in Hansen (2000) is still accepted as true today (at least by the IPCC). Hence it was a poor choice of examples for Harrywr2.
That said, lumping aerosols with CO2 is not necessarily the best approach, though I actually quite like it. Others tend to just use aerosols to cancel out non-CO2 forcings since it makes the accounting easier (CO2-eq being a rather… unfortunate unit for a number of reasons, see http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2009/01/common-climate-misconceptions-co-equivalence/ for example).
Jean S (Comment#31949) February 3rd, 2010 at 1:59 pm
Jean – I think you should write your specific point to the investigating committee. In the quick skim I had of the report I saw reference to “having received no direct allegation/accusation of wrong doing” or some such wording. I don’t know if they requested input from outsiders but seeing as they reference it as not having occurred I think you should put it in now to get your view on the record. From your description I think it also falls within the scope of allegation 4 as a breach of accepted practice in reporting results of research.
“Sometimes short post are just announcing a bullet point. Whether you like it or not, the decision to pursue one of the allegations is the bullet point. Had they decided to pursue one or four, those would have been the bullet points.”
And my “bullet points” noted that Mann was entirely exonerated of the 3 most serious charges, which some observers might not be aware of when reading this blog post, but might find to be highly relevant.
Considering the various accusations and ad hominens that have been hurled at Dr. Mann recently and over the years, and given the treasure chest of evidence that stolen private email exchanges spanning many years potentially provides for the accusers to support their assertions, I find the statement:
“After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data. While a perception has been created in the weeks after the CRU emails were made public that Dr. Mann has engaged in the suppression or falsification of data, there is no credible evidence that he ever did so, and certainly not while at Penn State. In fact to the contrary…”
to be quite revealing. Certainly, this, and the rest of the report says much more about the integrity of the accusers than it does Dr. Mann, wouldn’t you say?
NewYorkJ–
Feel free to explain your feelings about how this should have been spun to Penn State, who also did not happen to mention the points you consider key in their longer article.
NewYorkJ says:
“Certainly, this, and the rest of the report says much more about the integrity of the accusers than it does Dr. Mann, wouldn’t you say?”
Says nothing about the accusers because the evidence is painfully evident to all except the willfully blind. I would say the report says a lot more about the integrity (or lack there of) of the university officials who did the investigation.
There needs to be a public inquiry with proper cross examination while under oath.
Jean S (Comment#31944) February 3rd, 2010 at 1:43 pm
I think they might be parsing words as narrowly as I am.
but ya, he did what you say. and ya that hides a decline.
I’m not sure I agree that #4 was any less serious than the others.
Don’t the rules discussed under the “Reasons” for the decision regarding #4 cover the most fundamental expectations we place upon academics, scientists, and particularly “Professors”?
PaulM (Comment#31926) February 3rd, 2010 at 12:35 pm
It means exactly what it means, but you are providing a different context. They are hiding an unexplained problem with the proxies that showed up in the 1960’s, when the proxies indicated cooling when everyone looking at the actual temperature record agreed it was warming. That is what they were ‘hiding’, nothing malicious or deceptive, but facts have never had much to do with the deniers seeking any means to attack science.
Bugs: “They are hiding an unexplained problem with the proxies that showed up in the 1960’s, when the proxies indicated cooling when everyone looking at the actual temperature record agreed it was warming. That is what they were ‘hiding’, nothing malicious or deceptive, but facts have never had much to do with the deniers seeking any means to attack science.”
Bugs agrees that scientists are hiding an unexplained problem.
Then he explains that there is nothing deceptive about that! No, there is not and that is a fact! Anyone thinking otherwise is a denier seeking any means to attack science!
Do you know how ridiculous you sound, Bugs?
That’s totally ridiculous. If you “hide an unexplained problem” from outside scrutiny, you *are* being “malicious or deceptive” – actually you are being both. So the proxies stopped working in the 1960s – and nobody can explain exactly why. That inevitably raises the question of whether they might have stopped working in the past, too. So what do you do? To prevent anyone from having that idea, you just hide that problem. How is that *not* being malicious and deceptive?
bugs: “They are hiding an unexplained problem with the proxies that showed up in the 1960’s, when the proxies indicated cooling when everyone looking at the actual temperature record agreed it was warming. That is what they were ‘hiding’, nothing malicious or deceptive, but facts have never had much to do with the deniers seeking any means to attack science.”
Yes that’s right Bugs – no scientific interest here in an unexplained divergence of observation from expectation. etc etc etc…
It appears that the committee did
a.) not have the background to understand the technical details and just accepted Mann’s explanation.
b.) Asked him if he did anything wrong and accepted his denial
c.) Asked him for emails that might incriminate him assuming that he would provide the information even if he was guilty
Incompetence or whitewash. Who were these guys, Bernie Madoff’s auditors?
“Hide what you can’t explain”. Bugs c. 2010. Time for the scientific method to “progress”, eh Bugs?
The most egregious thing Mann did was interfere in the academic review process.
We all know that Mann’s “data analysis” is manipulated, making up statistics where none existed, but he didn’t manipulate or falsify the “data” itself (Tiljander aside). At least two review panels have already found much the same. Everyone knows he has been manipulating data for years but he has been given a pass on this already. If this were just about the Hockey Stick, the university would have fired him long ago. Since this did not happen, we can assume it is already condoned.
Lots of academics don’t provide all their data so the university’s hands were tied here too. Saving emails in a Zip archive on a CD and storing them at home rather than on the university’s servers might also be construed as not destroying emails.
So points 1, 2, and 3 were about falsifying data and for this, he has been cleared in the usual way a university would conclude in similar cases. I would not have given him a pass on this because he has shown he is prepared to breach normal data analysis practise over and over again but a university might.
Point 4 was always the issue in question – undertaking activities seriously deviating from academic practice – interfering in the review process using intimidation – was always the most egregious malpractise. And he is now being formally investigated for this. The university has decided to take the next step.
If there is enough evidence of seriously deviating from academic practice – and the emails indicate there should be lots of it around if properly reviewed and available – then he will receive more than a slap on the wrists.
He is not exonerated – the more serious issues are now being formally investigated. Someone is already buying paint rollers and whitewash at the local hardware store, but it depends on what evidence is available and the reaction the new review panel has to that evidence. If they are properly shocked and appalled, he won’t get a pass this time.
The university is conducting an investigation.
Does the findings of the investigation, whatever that may be, have an implication on the university? Yes
ergo.. the investigation is suspect irregardless of the finding.
Bill Illis (Comment#32063),
How’s it going Bill? I agree with your analysis. You have to get past all Mann’s nauseating arrogance and all the borderline stuff, and look at the damage he did to the academic integrity of his field. Heck, if Mann worked for me, I’d have fired him as soon as I saw the email evidence of his efforts to interfere with other people’s publications and intimidate journal editors (I’d fire Jones and several others who were involved as well!). But he works for Penn State, so the consequences for his transgressions will be as much a political decision as a decision about his conduct. Penn State doesn’t want to tick off the politicians that control most operating funds, but also doesn’t want to offend the (likely Mann-supportive) faculty needed for future success of the University. In addition, Mann for sure brings in a lot of outside research funding, and the University will not want to lose that either. So I suspect there will likely be some kind of reprimand/warning, but nothing too serious.
Will any of this actually make a difference in Mann’s future behavior? When pigs fly! But he will certainly hide his corruption of the field more carefully in the future.
Re: Baa Humbug (Feb 4 07:47),
On the one hand, the university has a conflict of interest in these investigations; on the other hand, universities do sometimes find against faculty in these investigations.
The fact is though, who else would conduct the investigation? Mann is accused of violating professional standard set by his university. Only the university can really decide if he did so. With respect to it’s reputation, Penn State is actually torn in two directions.
On the one hand, if a faculty is found to have been violating the standards, then the public comes to know that somehow the process of hiring and giving people tenure is imperfect and doesn’t cause people to automatically behave like saints. That can look a little bad for the university, but everyone knows this, don’t they?
On the other hand, if a faculty member is perceived by the public to violate the standards the University claims it claims to require for faculty, the University ignore this or exonerates him and lots of people think the investigation was a whitewash, this can really hurt the public reputation of Penn State. The outcome could also have a negative impact on other Universities, because people don’t always recognize one University might differ from another in this regard.
There is a third interesting feature in all this which is a bit tangential to reputation management. If a faculty member– like Mann– brings in a lot of funded research and the university sanctions him, then what?
Do they sanction him, give him a mild spanking, but let him retain his position. If so, they might hope to continue receiving the stream of funding, part of which is tapped for overhead, part of which pays student stipends buys snazzy equipment etc.
Do they fire him? Even if they don’t fire him, will he seek a position at another University– who might be willing to give him some sort of position because they want the stream of funding?
Individual faculty members on the board probably don’t think specifically about the funding. But it might influence those who chose who to place on the board. By the time they are full professors, other staff know who is a harda** and who is a bit more forgiving etc. So, there are difficulties with these investigation.
That said, I don’t know if it’s much different from Senators investigating Senators, or physicians investigating physicians etc. Internal review boards face challenges. They do in this case. We’ll see what happens.
Re: steven mosher (Feb 3 23:57),
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/mbh99_mikestrick.gif
curious (Comment#32057) February 4th, 2010 at 5:22 am
Typical ignorance. The problem was well documented, and discussed in the research community, and is being actively researched now. But hey, lets just send Mann to jail, he deserves it anyway.
SteveF (Comment#32069) February 4th, 2010 at 8:09 am
The irony is so thick here you could it with a knife. I don’t know what you call the banshee chorus around the internet, but if that’s not intimidation, and meant to be intimidating, I don’t know what is.
bugs (Comment#32073) – Typical strawman – I didn’t mention jailing anybody, I simply pointed out your version of science (“They are hiding an unexplained problem…” etc) has shortcomings in terms of advancing and supporting the claimed validity of proxy studies (this last point was implicit btw hth).
“Boris, could you provide a reference for that retraction?
I’m interested in what “technique†you’re using.
Thanks”
Are you not familiar with the story? Von Storch and half the editors resigned and the president of the organization that publishes CR said that the paper was flawed and shouldn’t have been published without extensive revision.
curious (Comment#32089) February 4th, 2010 at 9:40 am
Not only curious, but thick. I never said you mentioned jailing, I was just referring to the continual calls for punishment to meted out to climate researchers such as Mann, based on a complete misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the issue. In terms of advancing science, the proxies were being known to be problematic, and continual research has been done into the problems with them. All areas of science have problems that have not been solved, we still haven’t even nailed down gravity after 400 odd years. The problem with proxies were published and understood. Nothing was hidden about that. The banshee chorus on the internet results from the misrepresentation of just what ‘hide the decline’ refers to and represents. All it refers to is a problem with proxies since the sixties, that was being researched back then, and is being researched now. They are adbancing science. The continual bitching and sniping going on in topics such as this do nothing to advance the science.
The people who wrote to the university demanding an inquiry surely believe that the university is capable of conducting a fair investigation. Otherwise, what would be the point of writing all of those letters?
In any case, this is just another skeptic freeroll. If nothing is found, that just proves the university had a vested interest. Climate skepticism means never having to say you’re wrong.
Boris,
People wrote asking for a real inquiry – not a whitewash.
There is more than enough publically available information that shows Mann is guilty of unprofessional conduct. The only question that the inquiry needed to answer was what sort of punishment is appropriate.
sod (Comment#31951) February 3rd, 2010 at 2:07 pm
“throwing mud, hoping that something sticks.
5 scientists reviewing Mann, instead of doing proper work.
denialists score 1 point, science scores zero points.
minor hope that investigation by chance turns up something negative, that might remove Mann.
denialists score 1 point, science scores zero points.
not a good day for science.”
This is only true if you believe Mann was actually conducting science. I believe he was not. Shining a bright light on Mann’s manipulations of both data and peer review is +1 for science. A good day indeed.
Bugs: “All it refers to is a problem with proxies since the sixties, that was being researched back then, and is being researched now.”
.
All it refers to is a problem with the proxies back to the year dot. There is no evidence this is a problem confined to the 60s and that is the rather large assumption underpinning the whole method: That a temperature signal dominates every other growth affecting parameter over every period of time, when there is evidence to the contrary. If it doesn’t, tree proxies are worse than useless for determining past temperature.
.
“They are adbancing science.”
.
In what way? They have discovered a fundamental flaw in their hypothesis and they have no idea what the cause is, then or now.
Re: Boris (Feb 4 09:54),
Oh.. not necessarily. People who think he’s guilty might want an investigation even if they think in the end university bias means the investigation won’t be fair.
Still, I think the University has sufficient interest to at least try to have a fair investigation. In anycase, they are the only entity that can investigate certain types of allegations. I doubt the legislators in Pennsylvania every made it a felony to act in an unscholarly manner!
bugs – perhaps I am thick and perhaps you can help me. My understanding of this issue is that there were two separate sources of data spliced togehter and then smoothed into a single graphic which was presented without a note explaining that it was a composite. Have I misunderstood?
bugs (Comment#32076),
“I don’t know what you call the banshee chorus around the internet, but if that’s not intimidation, and meant to be intimidating, I don’t know what is.”
.
Let me make sure I understand this: 1) Someone is accused of academic misconduct, based mainly on his own words in email messages. 2) People note that the evidence sure does suggest misconduct worthy of dismissal. 3) You complain that noting this is intimidation.
.
Nobody forced Micheal Mann to write those emails. He is 100% responsible for his own words.
Lucia,
” I doubt the legislators in Pennsylvania every made it a felony to act in an unscholarly manner!”
Of course, falsifying results to support grant applications might be another issue.
Boris, let me help you out. This is what a “retraction” looks like:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)60175-7/fulltext
Did the journal actually “retract” the article?
Weren’t you one of those that had a conniption over the alleged misuse of the word “fingerprint”?
Zeke Hausfather (Comment#32012)
February 3rd, 2010 at 7:27 pm
Zeke,
Thanks. So can we agree that both IPCC and Hansen support this statement:
(From the Hansen abstract.)
“Did the journal actually “retract†the article?”
You are right–I don’t think a formal retraction was ever made. Half the editorial board resigned. The publisher said the paper shouldn’t have been published. The article is a known piece of crap. I have no idea what your point is.
Boris (Comment#32397)
February 6th, 2010 at 7:34 am
Well, I guess being deliberately obtuse is one debating tactic.
You were, of course, one of the panties-in-a-bunch crowd insisting on the precise use of “fingerprint”.
Precision with other words seems to be another matter I guess.
Jean S (Comment#32072) February 4th, 2010 at 8:27 am
Yup. You nailed it.
Funny I referenced your work the other day on the guardian ( on hiding the decline) and some joker wanted to question your results based on the fact that you were anonymous. He didnt get how posting code makes the point moot.
WRT Mann. I think the committee might have been construing the words in the narrowest sense possible ie the mails show that Jones and briffa hid the decline, but the mails dont show that Mann did. Your evidence, which they did not even consider of course shows that he did.
I had a chat with Mc ysrterday about this. On his view the inquiry overstepped its bounds. Their remit should have only covered the “existence” of evidence on each charge. Instead they rendered a verdict based on one side of the story. That is they read the mails, talked to North and Mann and concluded that there was no evidence, or rather since the mails consitute evidence of hiding a decline, they concluded that mann’s defense made sense.
This question, the question of is there a defense, should have been passed onto the allegation committe.
Like a grand jury that merely finds that there is evidence of a crime before a trial.
All of which goes to show that in academia they couldnt even indict a ham sandwich.