By Michael Barone, Source:  Rasmussen Reports on SPPI

Religious faith is a source of strength in many people’s lives. But religious faith when taken too far can prove ludicrous - or disastrous.

On Oct. 22, 1844, thousands of Millerites, having sold all their possessions, climbed to the top of hills in Upstate New York to await the return of Jesus and the end of the world. They suffered “the great disappointment” when it didn’t happen.

In 1212, or so the legends go, thousands of Children’s Crusaders set off from France and Germany expecting the sea to part so they could march peaceably and convert Muslims in the Holy Land. It didn’t, and many were shipwrecked or sold into slavery.

In 1898, the cavalrymen of the Madhi, ruler of Sudan for 13 years, went into the Battle of Omdurman armed with swords, believing that they were impervious to bullets. They weren’t, and they were mowed down by British Maxim guns.

A similar but more peaceable fate is befalling believers in what I think can be called the religion of the global warming alarmists.

They have an unshakeable faith that manmade carbon emissions will produce a hotter climate, causing multiple natural disasters. Their insistence that we can be absolutely certain this will come to pass is based not on science - which is never fully settled, witness the recent experiments that may undermine Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity - but on something very much like religious faith.

All the trappings of religion are there. Original sin: Mankind is responsible for these prophesied disasters, especially those slobs who live on suburban cul-de-sacs and drive their SUVs to strip malls and tacky chain restaurants.

The need for atonement and repentance: We must impose a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system, which will increase the cost of everything and stunt economic growth.

Ritual, from the annual Earth Day to weekly recycling.

Indulgences, like those Martin Luther railed against: private jet-fliers like Al Gore and sitcom heiress Laurie David can buy carbon offsets to compensate for their carbon-emitting sins.

Corporate elitists, like General Electric’s Jeff Immelt, profess to share this faith, just as cynical Venetian merchants and prim Victorian bankers gave lip service to the religious enthusiasms of their days. Bad for business not to. And if you’re clever, you can figure out how to make money off it.

Believers in this religion have flocked to conferences in Rio de Janeiro, Kyoto and Copenhagen, just as Catholic bishops flocked to councils in Constance, Ferrara and Trent, to codify dogma and set new rules.

But like the Millerites, the global warming clergy has preached apocalyptic doom - and is now facing an increasingly skeptical public. The idea that we can be so completely certain of climate change 70 to 90 years hence that we must inflict serious economic damage on ourselves in the meantime seems increasingly absurd.

If carbon emissions were the only thing affecting climate, the global-warming alarmists would be right. But it’s obvious that climate is affected by many things, many not yet fully understood, and implausible that SUVs will affect it more than variations in the enormous energy produced by the sun.

Skepticism has been increased by the actions of believers. Passage of the House cap-and-trade bill in June 2009 focused politicians and voters on the costs of global-warming religion. And disclosure of the Climategate emails in November 2009 showed how the clerisy was willing to distort evidence and suppress dissenting views in the interest of propagation of the faith.

We have seen how the United Nations agency whose authority we are supposed to respect took an item from an environmental activist group predicting that the Himalayan glaciers would melt in 2350 and predicted that the melting would take place in 2035. No sensible society would stake its economic future on the word of folks capable of such an error.

In recent years, we have seen how negative to 2 percent growth hurts many, many people, as compared to what happens with 3 to 7 percent growth. So we’re much less willing to adopt policies that will slow down growth not just for a few years but for the indefinite future.

Media, university and corporate elites still profess belief in global warming alarmism, but moves toward policies limiting carbon emissions have fizzled out, here and abroad. It looks like we’ll dodge the fate of the Millerites, the children’s crusaders and the Mahdi’s cavalrymen.

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.