Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Watermelon season - Josh 127 | Main | Back on Black »
Friday
Nov112011

Corrupt inquiries

Readers here have come across one two university cover-ups in the last few years, so the news reported at Climate Audit that the President of Penn State university has been fired for failing to investigate allegations of paedophilia against one of football coaches is perhaps less of a surprise than it might be to others. For these latest allegations to be centred on Penn State - Michael Mann's place of work, and the university responsible for one of the Climategate non-inquiries adds a certain piquancy to the story.

As McIntyre points out, the impetus do this seems to have been to protect the university's commercial interests. One can only assume that the university bigwigs were incentivised to maintain and grow the flow of funds into the football programme.

When we turn to the university of East Anglia then, we might wonder if we can see a similar commercial incentive in place. I think we probably can - it is known that CRU was bringing in very large sums of money from US funding bodies for doing very little at all. The need to protect that flow of funds may well have been enough for the integrity of the inquiries to be jettisoned from the start.

Can we conclude from this that the universities are not working for the public benefit?

(H/T Dead Dog Bounce)

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (56)

Typo:: "When we turn to the university of East Anglia then, can might wonder if ".

I just feel sorry for the students who go to these institutions. If you are hiding the decline in your research, then I've no doubt you will be hiding the decline in your teaching, and hiding the decline in job prospects of your students.

Nov 11, 2011 at 8:38 AM | Unregistered CommenterMike Haseler

The Onion pwn the media coverage of the coach penn state protected: http://www.onionsportsnetwork.com/articles/sports-media-asks-molestation-victims-what-this-me,26609/

It could just as easily be a parody of the climategate scandle

Nov 11, 2011 at 8:38 AM | Unregistered CommenterJason F

When science is taken over by a new Lysenkoism, political and economic drives of all associated state organs merge into one. Thus, the UEA which is reportedly run by one of the most senior in Common Purpose, the de facto EU government of the UK, would inevitably follow the route set by the EU/CP and the Murdoch-led Mafia which apparently controlled CRU 'science' to further renewable energy and carbon trading interests here and in the US.

The key is the link to Penn State and its protection of Mann, also the main carbon traders Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank and their tied politicians, Obama, Gore, Clinton, Brown, Blair, Merkel and Rudd/Gillard..

A rider to this is that it has taken economic depression to force control of science out of the hands of the Mafia and it power to bias research results for its enrichment: scary.

Nov 11, 2011 at 8:44 AM | Unregistered Commentermydogsgotnonose

Would it be naive in the extreme to assume that anything emanating out of the CRU was for the wider benefit of the British public?

Yes it would.

The United State department of energy has been funding this lot [UEA CRU] since the mid 70s [global cooling to runaway global warming - it's a stretch].


The CRU have to be advocates, therefore 'research' must reflect donors interests and wants - AGW is the only game in town.
It goes something like this:
Political postulation = AGW + government University funded accreditation = scare...'convince' the public = taxpayer input = AGW money-go-round.


Same with the E Mann @ Penn State advocacy, Rahmstorf in Potsdam and Serreze@NSIDC all reliant on the public purse, all spiel the government line = if they know what is good for their departments.

Nov 11, 2011 at 8:52 AM | Unregistered CommenterAthelstan.

I first thought this might be an unfair comparison, then reading the CA article I find I can only agree with what McIntyre says here:

It’s hard not to transpose the conclusions of the Penn State Climategate “investigation” into Penn State’s attitude towards misconduct charges in their profitable football program:

It reminded me of the Alice In Wonderland procedure Penn State used to justify the lack of examination of Mann - Summation: Mann has won so many grants, and got so many plaudits from his peers, that the charges are self-evidently wrong.

But now we here reported

"The university is much larger than its athletic teams," board vice chair John Surma said during a news conference.

Obviously not larger than climate science though. ;)

Nov 11, 2011 at 8:56 AM | Unregistered CommenterThe Leopard In The Basement

There is a British university that might soon face an official enquiry. The British Medical Journal is calling for University College London to be investigated over how prominent medical scientists put their names to research by doctor Andrew Wakefield, who has since been struck off, on a possible link between autism and the MMR vaccine.

UCL faces inquiry over MMR jab safety scare
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-24008309-ucl-faces-inquiry-over-mmr-jab-safety-scare.do

Of course there is a major difference between the MMR and man-made global warming scares. The first was against the consensus and the second was in conformity with the consensus. Therefore it is safe to assume that if an enquiry is launched into the role of University College London in the MMR scare it will not be a whitewash, unlike the numerous "climategate" enquiries which might just as well have been carried out by Lord Hutton who won fame for his handling of the enquiry into the death of David Kelly who had been involved in investigating whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Nov 11, 2011 at 9:08 AM | Unregistered CommenterRoy

Another question this raises for me is that I am often struck by the dichotomy that we are constantly told that climate science has so great a consequence for billions of people, and their welfare, and yet at the same time the same poeple who make these claims often easily accept the patently soft examinations of the people involved and the claims made.

This convinces me that there is a lot of abstract moralising going on, and I have always thought that these same excusers would surely up their level of their scrutiny if the situation became more directly personal to them and had higher personal risks or they had personal feelings or being wronged.

I think that is what we see here. When the consequences are more immediate and less abstract you get more oversight, for instance, from the Guardian we now hear

Calls for Spanier to be fired by newspapers, online groups and petitions mushroomed in recent days, many of them supported by upset and disillusioned alumni.

You would never get this in climate because the whole issue is just an abstract moral playground for posturing elites that leave the public cold.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/10/joe-paterno-fired-penn-state

Nov 11, 2011 at 9:25 AM | Unregistered CommenterThe Leopard In The Basement

Desperate stuff. This post is evidence that advocates positioned as skeptices will stop at nothing to slur climate scientists. Is there no connection too tenuous for you ?

Nov 11, 2011 at 9:28 AM | Unregistered CommenterHengist

Desperate stuff indeed Hengist, I can smell your panic from here.

Nov 11, 2011 at 9:33 AM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

Are you sure (sh)its panic BigY?

Nov 11, 2011 at 9:38 AM | Unregistered CommenterPeter Walsh

It would suit his purpose well to go screaming to his mates that the bad sceptics are implying Mann is a paedophile. Hengist probably hasn't even read thew original post (which has nothing to do with paedophila or Mann in particular), just takes from it a convenient message they can use to further de-humanise sceptics. Such misrepresentation of the facts is bread and butter for the shrill bunch.

Nov 11, 2011 at 9:53 AM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

All 'internal enquiries' are nowt but PR exercises. There are two gambits: the first is virtue-out-necessity - "Yes XYZ did something terribly wrong but we found out which shows how robust our systems are and we chucked out the scoundrels, which confirms how robust our systems are, so you can trust us and please keep on sending ghe money". The second is the argument from superiority: "We are the best of all institutions in the best of all worlds so accusations raised by spiteful malcontents cannot possibly be true; and to prove that - as if people like us have to prove anything - , we asked those subjected to the vile accusations, and they agreed with us that the accusations cannot possibly be true. So you can trust us and please keep on sending the money". Notable that both Penn and UEA went for option 2 when option 1 was equally available.

Nov 11, 2011 at 9:55 AM | Unregistered Commenterbill

Quote, George Monbiot, "flying across the Atlantic is now as unacceptable as child abuse".

Perhaps we can say in this case, "the lack of academic integrity at Penn State led to the institutional acceptance of child abuse".

Nov 11, 2011 at 9:56 AM | Unregistered CommenterMac

Hengist
If you want to have a go at somebody why not start with those people who see political conspiracies round every corner?

Nov 11, 2011 at 10:08 AM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson

I note that Graham Spanier, President of Penn State was the founding editor of the Journal of Family Issues and lists "family therapist" among his specialties.

Mindboggling, horrific and criminal neglect of his duties as president and a professional, and his responsibilities as an adult.

Nov 11, 2011 at 10:09 AM | Unregistered CommenterMac

"The British Medical Journal is calling for University College London to be investigated over how prominent medical scientists put their names to research by doctor Andrew Wakefield, who has since been struck off, on a possible link between autism and the MMR vaccine."

Wasn't Wakefield was struck off in this country because the Authorities found that he did not abide by the recently updated procedures with respect to patient confidentiallity and gaining patient permission before their notes were used?

Andrew Wakefield said the triple MMR vaccine should be suspended until more research had been done and that, in the mean time, the single vaccines used; not an unusual request for someone who genually believed there might be a problem.

It was the Britsh government that banned the single MMR vaccines. It was that action that escalated the situation. Just think of the suffering of the children that was trying to be avoided by Wakefield in making that suggestion!

There was also the issue of mercury-based additions to the vaccines, which were banned in many other countries, so the story is much more complicated that it appears in the ThisIsLondon article.

This article highlights the confusion at the time and the 'science-tinged righteousness' of today:
" Hating Wakefield is the flipside of the mad media love for Wakefield in the 1990s. Where those journalists who fell for Wakefield's charms tried to turn him into a symbol of Good against corrupt authority, today's enlightened hacks turn him into a symbol of Evil who apparently set science back 10 years and brainwashed the otherwise perfectly rational middle classes. It's a nice story. And it will allow anti-Wakefield journalists to feel puffed-up with science-tinged righteousness."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100073032/andrew-wakefield-didnt-cause-the-mmr-panic-on-his-own/

Nov 11, 2011 at 10:12 AM | Unregistered CommenterRobert Christopher

Quote, Howard BryantESPN.com, "Spanier, president of the university since 1995, failed, too. He might not face charges, but he has known about this incident for nine years and, as the indictment became public this weekend, chose to use his public comments not to condemn a systematic failure but to defend Schultz (vice president for business and finance) and Curley (athletic director) without significantly mentioning the pain and plight of the alleged victims."

http://espn.go.com/espn/commentary/story/_/id/7208029/penn-state-joe-paterno-failure-power

It transpires that Penn State officials have been defending the indefensible for years.

Penn State - "The Whitewash" university.

Nov 11, 2011 at 10:20 AM | Unregistered CommenterMac

Hengist; your post is truly desperate. This is because you and your ilk were taken in by expert propagandists who fed in exactly the right information to get the Pavlovian response. Real CO2-AGW is far less than claimed by the IPCC. That fraud was complete by NASA in 2004 when it publicly claimed new physics supporting the idea which had developed in climate science that pollution making clouds more reflective was hiding CO2-AGW from 'back radiation'.

The latter was devised by Aarenius in the 1890s and apparently confirmed by Milne in 1922. However any process engineer like me, who really knows heat transfer, will conform that it's bunkum. When climate scientists measure the DWLWIR or whatever they call it, it's really something else and can't do any thermodynamic work.

NASA's 'cloud albedo cooling' is really heating, the true AGW. This is because there is a second optical process. Not even the satellite data are correct because 40% of low level clouds, which contribute most cloud albedo, behave differently to the rest and are binned wrongly. And of course, palaeoclimate doesn't require CO2-GW because the warming starts 2000 years before any rise in CO2.

So accept this uncomfortable fact; IPCC climate science needs to be razed to the ground then rebuilt. This is in effect being done as new papers are published which reduce the effect of CO2. Here we have Lockwood hybridising solar UV and CO2 at a rate sufficiently low that he stays mainstream. It's a cynical game as he and others jockey for pole position and the same is happening in the US.

As for the likes of UEA/CRU which became in effect the climate version of Trotskyite Al-Qua'eda training camps for fraudsters, they can only exist so long as the present scientific hierarchy which has become Trotskyite controlled remains in power. And of course, Beddington isn't a scientist and Nurse and Jones haven't the physics to realise the IPCC science is fraudulent.

Personally, I'd close the worst institutions and tell the Regents of the the others to change leadership by bringing in competent scientists from other disciplines to weed out the crooks and failures.

Nov 11, 2011 at 10:23 AM | Unregistered Commentermydogsgotnonose

I note that Phil Jones has a 4-year contract (2010 - 2014) from the EU to the value of £318,519.00. With that sort of pull for funding, he must be just like Penn State claims (with just a name change):

This level of success in proposing research, and obtaining funding to conduct it, clearly places Prof Jones among the most respected scientists in his field. Such success would not have been possible had he not met or exceeded the highest standards of his profession for proposing research…

Had Prof Jones’ conduct of his research been outside the range of accepted practices, it would have been impossible for him to receive so many awards and recognitions, which typically involve intense scrutiny from scientists who may or may not agree with his scientific conclusions…

Clearly, Prof Jones' reporting of his research has been successful and judged to be outstanding by his peers. This would have been impossible had his activities in reporting his work been outside of accepted practices in his field.

Nov 11, 2011 at 10:23 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

"The British Medical Journal is calling for University College London to be investigated over how prominent medical scientists put their names to research by doctor Andrew Wakefield, who has since been struck off, on a possible link between autism and the MMR vaccine"

Sorry if this is OT, but if I was the BMJ, I'd stop now. MMR does not have a clean bill of health and there is a definite whiff of protesting too much. Autism rates have risen very sharply in the last 30 years and this remains largely unexplained.

Nov 11, 2011 at 10:31 AM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

And of course this from Prof Jones in Climategate email 1120676865 in 2005:

I hope I don’t get a call from Congress! I’m hoping that no-one there realizes I have a United States Department of Energy grant, and have had this (with Tom Wigley) for the last 25 years.

If he's still getting funding from the USDoE, that's now 31years. Nice work if you can get it.

Nov 11, 2011 at 10:34 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

It transpires that the Penn State board of trustees tried to set up an investigative committee concerning Spanier, along the lines of the Mann investigation, but this was shot down by Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett.

It highlights that giving the enormity and impact of the allegations the first response of Penn State was to protect one of their own.

This seriously undermines all previous Penn State investigations in which Spanier presided over amd thows into doubt the thoroughness and integrity of the nominated investigators.

Nov 11, 2011 at 10:37 AM | Unregistered CommenterMac

The point here is that Penn State has saught to protect its commercial interests and reputation by seeking to protect officials and academics from proper investigation. Penn State's duty was only to itself, not students, not parents and children, not the taxpayer, not the law, not the local community, not science, not academic freedom.

The Hockey Team and the Football Team were both found wanting, Penn State chose to ignore that, cover it up and produce a whitewash.

Nov 11, 2011 at 10:46 AM | Unregistered CommenterMac

Mac; in the same way that CRU was advised by a Murdoch employee during the Oxburgh** investigation, the corporate/Mafia investment in renewables and carbon trading has come to control the research. Another example is the Grantham Institute at Imperial and LSE - Grantham's interest is apparently carbon trading.

Of course, industrially-funded research is the bedrock of research universities and it's well known that the drug companies invent new diseases to control thereby creating new markets. However, in the case of climate research we had for the first time ever the creation of fake science as a new Lysenkoism for the Marxists who then teamed up with organised crime which controls the relevant industry.

This Mafia in turn bought the politicians and the presence of compromised individuals in positions of control is a well known Mafia tactic. Solyndra was a classic case of the kind of state-sponsored industrial failure we normally associate with Stalinist societies, and that or a new Nazism is the way Obama's USA is going. His science chief Holdren was an acolyte of Eugenicist Errlich who with fraudster Margaret Meade organised the 'Endangered Atmosphere' conference in 1975.

That conference triggered climate scientists like Schneider who until then had been getting grants by predicting a new ice age, to switch to predicting global warming. Holdren was one of them.

**Oxburgh is/was chairman of Falck renewables, the subsidiary of Falck Gruppe Milan, investigated by anti-Mafia police this year over its Calabrian wind farms which don't work because the EU grants there were purely for construction. Imagine the EU as a Mafia-run bureaucracy trying to establish a Stalinist superstate like Obama, or rather, his handlers want.

Nov 11, 2011 at 10:53 AM | Unregistered Commentermydogsgotnonose

"If he's still getting funding from the USDoE, that's now 31years. Nice work if you can get it."
Nov 11, 2011 at 10:34 AM | Phillip Bratby

Does the I.R. get a look in at these payments Phillp? We saw from the emails some dubious money transfer occurring, though with the advent of check to prevent money laundering I suppose tracking payments is held up to higher scrutiny. One wonders what some U.S. taxpayers would think of continuing funding at that level and who is responsible for oversight on it!

Nov 11, 2011 at 10:54 AM | Unregistered CommenterPete H

Quite a leap you've taken this morning from the victimization of children to the broader theme of Corrupt Inquiries. You folks in the trenches of the climate wars sure take yourselves seriously.

Nov 11, 2011 at 11:21 AM | Unregistered CommenterDGH

Seems the rent-a-mob have been called in. Unless DGH stands for Dont Goad Hengist.

Nov 11, 2011 at 11:24 AM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

Hengist is an interesting case, an intelligent would be lefty journalist who has followed all the correct middle class poseur causes but isn't totally immersed in his fundamentum that he can't see reality.

There's a good chance he'll replace poseur Hari which is why I have tried to educate him into accepting that the lefties were conned over climate science by the fascists.

Nov 11, 2011 at 11:37 AM | Unregistered Commentermydogsgotnonose

Re: DGH

Quite a leap you've taken this morning from the victimization of children to the broader theme of Corrupt Inquiries.

There were serious allegations made against *INSERT NAME HERE* a trusted (and revered) member of staff and instead of investigating the allegations they were ignored. This was because of the possible financial harm and damage to the University's prestige any investigate might have. It was only when the events came to light outside of the University's control that they actually decided to do anything.
Now can you imagine the outcry that will/would ensue should the University investigate the allegations against *INSERT NAME HERE* and only interviewed those who believe *INSERT NAME HERE* innocent? If when they interviewed *INSERT NAME HERE* about the allegations they never asked the question "Did you do this?". If they never attempted to verify any of *INSERT NAME HERE* answers and instead assumed that all of the answers were complete and honest?

Nov 11, 2011 at 12:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

Well put TerryS

All investigations Panier presided over are now suspect.

Nov 11, 2011 at 12:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterMac

My purpose in drawing attention to the call for an investigation of UCL's role in the MMR debate was not to discuss the merits or otherwise of the vaccine although I agree a lot of problems could have been avoided if the government had continued to offer single vaccines.

What I wanted to do was point out that there is every prospect of an enquiry into UCL and MMR, if the call for an enquiry is headed, asking far reaching questions because Dr Wakefield's position is very much a minority one. In contrast the Oxburgh Report into "climategate" at UEA was much less of an inquisition and although it might be cynical to suggest that was because the people whose work was investigated had mainstream climate science views I cannot help feeling that was a factor in the way the enquiry was conducted.

Nov 11, 2011 at 12:40 PM | Unregistered CommenterRoy

Seems the ad hom crew has been called in to defend the otherwise indefensible. The posts at CA, WUWT and here are unnecessary cheap shots that are insensitive at best.

"You can send me dead flowers every morning and I won't forget to put roses on your grave."

Watching Spanier being summarily dismissed should have been sweet enough.

Nov 11, 2011 at 12:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterDGH

DGH, yes the thing being covered up in this case (paedophilia) is horrible, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the university conspiring to cover it up throughout 'enquiries', this is the same university which held 'enquiries' into Mann. Can you not see why it is a worthy topic of discussion?

If they would cover up something so heinous, then would they have any qualms about covering up something which also brought great financial revenue benefits - Mann's work?

You trying to invoke the spectre of 'ad hom' is simply smoke and mirrors - the same pathetic misdirection Hengist used - nobody here is ad-homming Mann, if you read that then it's all in your mind. We're drawing parallels between the two 'enquries', and noting that the exposing of one coverup does not shine a good light on the other.

Nov 11, 2011 at 1:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

TheBigYinJames - Spot on.

Nov 11, 2011 at 1:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterMac

OK, I'm going to ignore the very murky waters that some of the comments have stirred up and attempt a response solely to the Bishop's last sentence: "Can we conclude from this that the universities are not working for the public benefit?".

1) To be very picky but also accurate, this sentence needs more spelling out. For example, if we insert "some people in some" before "the universities" then only a fool or a liar would disagree.

2) Why should the Universities work (solely) for the public benefit? Did the public buy them or are they "not for profits" with their own, sometimes legitimate, agendas?
Surely the answer here will vary with the institution as well as with a definition of "the public good"?
[This is minor, but perhaps not too minor].

3) Turning to what I think the Bish means - it's very clear that large institutions are usually run by people with a tendency to circle the wagons. The ideal university will do this very little and will be open to ideas from any source. State funding and the promotion of research income as a major source of funding runs counter to this in some very big and very bad ways.

4) Rather than just rail against "the universities" it might also be wise to encourage people everywhere to value a little more what they traditionally offered (see above). This might help more academics to behave the way they should but, until the amosphere changes (apologies for the pun), I regret that you should expect much more bad behaviour.

5) If things get too bad then the nation will need to do something very serious about some (many?) universities, but I don't think we're very close to that yet.

Nov 11, 2011 at 1:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterSaul Jacka

No, I can't see that in the context of the current situation that this is a topic worth discussing. This matter at PSU is uniquely tragic, incomparable in my opinion. I've made that point now thrice.

Would you care to discuss that? Or are you just using my posts as an opportunity to work your way through the litany of logical fallacies?

Nov 11, 2011 at 1:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterDGH

DGH
The point is, the Penn episode is *not* uniquely tragic. Institutions always act to cover up stuff. It is the climate people who insisted that we believe self-serving institutions' 'inquiries' were sufficient enough to not look deeper.

Just like the IPCC, fish always rot from the head. There is a failure of leadership here. One more reason not to mindlessly swallow the establishment's feed, and to go looking on your own.

Nov 11, 2011 at 1:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterShub

DGH, if you don't want to discuss it then feel free not to. Stop trying to close down the dicussion by labelling it as abhorrent. If you cannot see how this throws a light on an institution that manages to hide such a hotriffic thing then I am sorry for you. Or is this just a tactic?

Nov 11, 2011 at 1:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

Police have long recognised that someone with a minor misdemeanor to his name is far more likely to be committing other misdemeanors as well. (That is why they check every single document when they stop a car for a traffic violation.)

The same thing holds true for university adminstrators. If they are prepared to cover one thing up, it is far more likely that they are also prepared to cover other things up.

In fact a culture develops and it is probably endemic, particularly in politics, finance and of course climate change. Because the rewards are disproportionate to the penalty of being found out.

Nov 11, 2011 at 2:24 PM | Unregistered Commentermatthu

I do wonder what impact this revelation will have on Mann's libel action against Tim Ball.

Will the alleged libel (linking Penn State to State Penn) still be perceived as being as injurious as ever?
Will Mann want to risk being seen to be stone-walling FOI requests?

Nov 11, 2011 at 2:35 PM | Unregistered Commentermatthu

matthu - interesting point.

Who at Penn State could Mann call upon now as witnesses for the action?

Nov 11, 2011 at 3:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterMac

My bet is that over time we will see that Academia is corrupted with coverups as has been the Cahtolic Church.

Nov 11, 2011 at 5:27 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

Basically, the top universities' hierarchies are either Masonic or CP.

Nov 11, 2011 at 5:35 PM | Unregistered Commentermydogsgotnonose

A pathetic situation, but a good example of how karma can reach out an' whup sumbuddy 'long side the haid. Michael Mann's day is coming. He needn't worry about the State pen; he's in enough trouble right where he is at Penn State.

There is no truth in the rumor that Penn State's "Nittany Lions" are going to change their team name to the "Nittany Cardinals."

"Academic freedom" is a concept invented by academics, for academics, and is inconsistent with public benefit.

Nov 11, 2011 at 5:59 PM | Unregistered Commenterjorgekafkazar

Perhaps Penn State would prefer to be known as Micky Mann University, given the new alternative.

Nov 11, 2011 at 9:10 PM | Unregistered Commenterdearieme

PSU responded vigorously to the scandal with their former football coach because the school is likely to be sue by the victims and be found liable for negligence in pursuing the problem once school officials were notified. In the case of Mann, PSU might be sued by the government for negligence in pursuing scientific misconduct while receiving federal grants. Under the circumstances, that isn't very likely.

Nov 11, 2011 at 10:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterFrank

Roy said

"... not to discuss the merits or otherwise of the vaccine.

What I wanted to do was point out that there is every prospect of an enquiry ...asking far reaching questions...In contrast the Oxburgh Report into "climategate" at UEA was much less of an inquisition...it might be cynical to suggest that was because the people whose work was investigated had mainstream climate science views I cannot help feeling that was a factor in the way the enquiry was conducted."

Indeed. Now wrt to Wakefield, how familiar are you with the name "Poul Thorsen" ? The Center for DIsease Control had Thorsen directing funding and involved in the 2 main debunking studies cited regarding Wakefield's claims.

He now faces over 300 years in prison when the law deals with him for absconding with funds, fraud, and so on.

The Center for Disease Control knew about his absconding for some time and kept quiet while Wakefield corruption was being fed to the media
The British Medial Journal and their writer, did a good hatchet job on Wakefield - but somehow failed to remember to report that they receive monies from those same vaccine makers..


As you indicated, media presentations are a bit biased. Whether Thorsen rigged anything in the studies is another matter- but there was incentive and opportunity, and he afterward absconded. That part we should be informed about.

Nov 11, 2011 at 11:08 PM | Unregistered Commentercorporate sponsor

Financial Times reports that PSU's bond rating is under review.

Conspiracies and criminal cover-ups are almost always revealed by whistleblowers.

The Climategate emails were revealed by a whistleblower.

The PSU child molesting scandal was revealed by whistleblowers.

All we need now is an insider who is disgusted by federally-funded climate grant research fraud to blow the whistle.

That would change the tenor of the new PSU investigation into Mann's follies.

Note that FT reports that PSU receives 9 times more revenue from federal research grants than from its football program. Think that might explain the whitewash of the Mann investigation?

If they're willing to go to great lengths to cover-up children being raped in the locker-room for $50 million, how much greater lengths would they be willing to go for $450 million?


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6931fd44-0cb6-11e1-a45b-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1dVPcAxDS

“Penn State’s football programme contributes about 2 per cent of revenues. Additional large contributors are tuition and other student-based revenue at 40 per cent and federal research grants at 19 per cent. The university receives 7 per cent of its operating revenue from the state government of Pennsylvania.”

Nov 12, 2011 at 6:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterSearch for Whistleblower

Perv State University. Am I the first? Huh? Huh?

Nov 12, 2011 at 6:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterBig M

Dr. Mann's research for the IPCC is accepted by US Intelligence agencies.

The National Intelligence Council, which is made of 16 US intelligence agencies, has posted quite a bit about climate change in different regions of the world here:

National Intelligence Council (NIC) [16 U.S. intelligence agencies], “Impact of Climate Change to 2030”

http://www.dni.gov/nic/special_climate2030.html

Thomas Fingar of the NIC has said:

"Our primary source for climate science was the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, which we augmented with other peer-reviewed analyses and contracted research. We used the UN Panel report as our baseline because this document was reviewed and coordinated on by the US government and internationally respected by the scientific community.“

•Dr. Thomas Fingar, former Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Analysis (June 25, 2008 before Congress)

•http://www.dni.gov/testimonies/20080625_testimony.pdf

Dr. Mann has written a book that explains the IPCC 4th Assessment Report for the non-expert. Perhaps you should read what Dr. Mann says if you don't have the background to understand the IPCC.

Nov 12, 2011 at 8:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterC. Henry

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>