Massive attention has been rightly focused on the cover-up of former football assistant coach Jerry Sandusky’s sex scandal by Penn State’s recently fired President, Graham Spanier. Yet nothing but disinterest attends Spanier’s equally damning malfeasance in his failure to assure even a pretense of legitimacy to a major Penn State academic investigation that, ironically, focused on research that produced a graph resembling a hockey stick!

While athletic programs are a major aspect of university life, the fact remains universities are first and foremost academic institutions. A stain on Penn State’s athletic program is a significant blow to both the University’s reputation and athletic program. A stain on its academic reputation is vastly more harmful.

Former President Spanier’s malfeasance played key roles in both scandals, apparently for the same reason:  he wanted to preserve the flow of money to the University, regardless of consequences to others.

Spanier’s role in Penn State’s academic scandal is described well in Steve McIntyre’s recent column, Penn State President Fired.1

For those unfamiliar with the academic scandal, Spanier allowed Penn State’s Inquiry Committee (PSIC) on Michael Mann’s tainted “Hockey Stick” research to create the illusion that Mann was exonerated by failing to assure the integrity of a complete and objective investigation by the PSIC. Apparently, Spanier was fully aware of the PSIC whitewash.  Not one of Mann’s many critics were either called to testify, interviewed, or allowed to submit evidence. With Spanier’s blessing, the PSIC simply ignored Penn State’s policy requiring such investigations “look at issues from all sides” (which must necessarily include critics of Mann;s work). Where an honest investigation would solicit evidence from critics, the PSIC simply built a wall to exclude critics!

Among those critical of Mann’s research is a leading authority on statistical techniques, Dr. Edward Wegman, a man whose reputation is beyond reproach. Dr. Wegman entered the “Hockey Stick” fiasco when he accepted an assignment from the congressional Energy and Commerce Committee “to assess the [Mann] hockey stick controversy pro bono, assembling an expert panel of statisticians to help with the job, also working pro bono."2

Conclusions of the Wegman report to Congress were particularly damning of Mann’s fundamentally invalid statistical methods. Figure 4.3 of the Wegman Report3 illustrates that, had proper statistical techniques been used, Mann’s chart would bear no resemblance to a hockey stick. It was only Mann’s improper use of statistical techniques that created the infamous “Hockey Stick” temperature history profile.

Spanier’s malfeasance is rooted in his accepting the committee’s findings that basically concluded Mann must be innocent on the basis of the strikingly naive belief his fellow climate scientists supporting provided ample justification for his innocence! That, together with the potential for more millions in funding for Mann’s future research at the University apparently sealed the verdict! Knowing the PSIC failed to perform a proper investigation, Spanier opted to sanction PSIC’s misconduct by simply looking the other way.

Incidental to Wegman’s primary investigation was the discovery that Mann’s fellow paleoclimate scientists constituted a relatively limited “clique” of scientists who engaged in circular peer-review, i.e., they “reviewed” each others’ works so that no real dissenting views were heard. On this point, the Wegman report stated the “paleoclimatology community seems to be tightly coupled as indicated by our social network analysis… “ (the clique). Given this background, it hardly startling to observe that Mann’s fellow scientists supported him!

Evidently, Spanier’s common approach to University scandals appears to have been to sanction a whitewash of any investigations that might diminish the flow of funds to the University.

Because the Mann investigatory whitewash is so transparent, objective observers do not believe Mann was exonerated (as Spanier claimed and the press trumpeted).

If really innocent of wrongdoing, Mann should be clamoring for a new and thorough PSIC investigation staffed by entirely new personnel committed to seeking the truth. A full and proper review must also assess any misconduct by the earlier PSIC personnel and is no less important than a full and proper investigation of the criminal behavior of those who facilitated former coach Sandusky’s prolonged egregious conduct.

Should Mann oppose reopening the case, he would essentially be admitting, “I’m guilty, and I don’t want to be caught by an honest inquiry.”

Of great significance to the importance of this scandal is the prominent role Mann’s “Hockey Stick” chart played in the subsequent report to policymakers of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The potential impact of bad science on international policy should not be underestimated. Despite independent repudiation of the chart, its veracity has been stubbornly defended by Mann’s friends in his paleoclimatology clique. It is therefore imperative that Penn State perform a legitimate, full and proper investigation of each of the allegations concerning Mann’s academic conduct in developing and defending his work.

Pennsylvania’s public and their Governor must demand equally comprehensive investigations of both these scandals so that any misconduct is ferreted out and those responsible for both the misconduct and its cover-up are punished appropriately. Should Penn State fail to act to expose official misconduct in sports and academics, the consequence will be irreparably further damage to both.

Appropriate legal action against Spanier for his malfeasance and the harm he has brought to Penn State’s reputation should be actively pursued.

Bob Webster, WEBCommentary (Editor, Publisher)

According to the Penn State University Budget Office the total funds allocated for research in the fiscal year 2010 - 2011 amounted to $804,789,000 of which $469,954,000 were Federal sponsored grants and contracts. McIntyre suggests such level of funding may have been sufficient to cause the university investigators to less than rigorously perform their duties. At the time of the findings, McIntyre was extremely critical of their performance. This by the way is nearly an order of magnitude greater than the sports programs. If a whitewash was viewed as necessary to preserve the sport program…

Dr. Richard Muller, Author of Berkeley Temperature Study, Makes First Appearance on Hill After Releasing Results; Drs. Ben Santer, William Chameides to Present Latest Research on Global Warming

More information & live webcast of this briefing

WASHINGTON - Three prominent scientists will present the best case yet for the end of climate skepticism in Washington and the world over the fact that the world is warming at a congressional briefing held by Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.).

The briefing will feature the first appearance on Capitol Hill by Dr. Richard Muller since the release of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project results. Dr. Muller was previously skeptical about many aspects of climate science, but the massive two-year study he led has validated the fact that the world is warming. His work also debunked many talking points repeated by climate science deniers that have been repeated by lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

Dr. Ben Santer of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory will discuss new research on recent warming. Dr. William Chameides, dean of Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment and vice-chair of the National Academies’ Committee on America’s Climate Choices, will discuss the findings of the National Academies’ America’s Climate Choices reports.

WHAT: Congressional climate science briefing: “Undeniable Data: The Latest Research on Global Temperature and Climate Science”

WHO: Reps. Ed Markey, Henry Waxman, others

Dr. Richard Muller, Director of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project

Dr. Ben Santer, research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Dr. William Chameides, Dean of Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment and ViceChair of the National Academies’ Committee on America’s Climate Choices

WHERE: 1324 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

WHEN: Monday, November 14, 2011, 2 PM

I can’t think of two congressional leaders as science illiterate as Waxman and Markey. Too many elitists though in the political arena and in the media and hollywood, have an inflated view of their own intelligence. Of course, you knew they would invite Muller after his recent BEST debacle and Santer single handedly reversed the entire scientific findings of an early IPCC report. Bill Chameides was one of my grad school profs at Georgia Tech. We need the republicans to invite an alternative viewpoint - Steve McIntyre, Anthony Watts, Willis Eschenbach, even Judith Curry for balance. Why if they have congressional control do they let Markey and Waxman get away with a one-sided panel.

Enlarged.

In my corner of the world it’s the 8th of November, 2011. On this date across the ocean in Australia something terrible happened (it’s already November 9th there now).

A minority government led by Julia Gillard passed 18 pieces of legislation that, collectively, ushered in a brand new, nationwide carbon tax. This is the same Gillard who, on the eve of a national election in 2010 made a clear, unequivocal statement:

I rule out a carbon tax.

According to the Sydney Morning Herald two weeks ago, a public opinion poll found that 2 out of 3 Australians were opposed to the carbon tax (59% versus 32%). Yet in a blog post Al Gore now says the passing of this legislation means that:

the voice of the people of Australia has rung out loud and clear

Reasonable people can disagree about many things when it comes to climate change. But it is not OK to rule out a measure just prior to an election and to then ram it through afterward - especially when you’re perfectly aware that two out of three of the citizens you’re supposed to serving oppose this measure.

Nor is it OK for Al Gore to spin this as a victory for the people of Australia. What a contemptible thing for him to say.

First, the Australian public was lied to. Then its views were ignored. Whether we are climate activists or climate skeptics surely we can agree that this isn’t how democratic government is supposed to work.

http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/back-to-the-dark-ages.pdf

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

“Senate passes Carbon Tax”. We have lost a battle but, with your help, we will win the war.
Carbon Sense Coalition

The passage of the carbon tax bills today is no reason for celebration. It is a step back towards the dark ages. Just a few generations ago, humans lived in a “green” world. There was no coal, oil or gas providing light, heat, transport and traction power.

In this green utopia, wood provided heat for cooking fires and forests were felled for charcoal for primitive metallurgy; farmers used wooden ploughs and harvested grain with sickles and flails; the nights were lit using candles and whale oil; rich people used wind and water power to grind cereals; horses and bullocks moved coaches, wagons and troops; there was no refrigeration and salt was the only preservative for meat.

Towns were tiny as the whole family was needed to work the farm. For most people, the daylight hours were filled with heavy labour to produce, preserve and transport food. There was no surplus to support opera, bureaucracy or academia.

Humanity was relieved from this life of unrelenting toil by carbon energy - steam engines and electricity, machines, tractors, cars, ships and planes. Prosperity and longevity soared.

Today the pagan green religion celebrates the first step in their long campaign to destroy industrial society and reduce population. They should be careful what they wish for.

For example, just a few more bitter winters in Britain will see their wind powered lights going out. A British observer once said of the Whitlam government: “Any fool can bugger up Britain, but it takes real genius to bugger up Australia”.

The Gillard-Green Government is showing the sort of genius needed to dim the lights in the lucky country.

Repeal the Carbon Tax? Yes We Can.

The Carbon Sense Coalition is supporting a rally being organised by The Consumers and Taxpayers Association (CATA). The rally will be held in Canberra at 12noon on 17 November 2011, the day President Obama is expected to be addressing Parliament with the world media present.

This rally will highlight the need to have this tax repealed. Buses will be available again and please book now, details are on this web site: www.stopcarbonlies.com. You can also book by email at: cata@hotmail.com.au

The New Global Warming Crisis
Solar Tax Needed

No one has noticed a new global warming crisis. Since July, temperatures in Australia have soared by over six degrees centigrade. If current trends continue, we can expect another three degrees of warming by Christmas.

This rapid warming has caused massive environmental disruption - alpine snow has melted, birds are migrating, there is an epidemic of weeds and we can expect more storms, cyclones, floods, mosquitoes and solar radiation burns.

This is far more serious than the UN’s forecast of a piddling 1-2 degrees of warming over the next hundred years or so.

What caused this dangerous new global warming? The old people called it “summer”.

Summer heat is generated by a slight increase in the solar radiation received at the surface, caused by cyclic changes in the positions of the sun in the sky. It is obvious that longer term solar cycles also dominate the climate. Even “The Farmer’s Almanac” knew that cycles in moon, planets and sunspots could be used to forecast the weather.

However, since people started to let computers do their thinking, knowledge of climate cycles has been lost. We now let computer nerds and taxaholics tell us that the climate is controlled by minute traces of a harmless invisible natural gas exhaled with every breath, generated in every bushfire and exhausted wherever coal, oil and gas are burned. Some even believe that a tax on carbon dioxide will cool the world.

It’s time we abandoned climate Cassandras with costly computers. There was more sense in “The Farmer’s Almanac”.

And a Solar Tax on the sun to reduce warming makes as much sense as a Carbon Tax on the air to induce cooling.