Community | February 03, 2010 | 10 comments

Three of four misconduct allegations against Michael Mann found to be without merit

source: http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2010/02/03/michael-mann-allegations-without-merit/

Image
angliss
Blurb: A Penn State inquiry has found that three of four research misconduct allegations against PSU climate scientist Michael Mann are totally without merit. Climate disruption "skeptics" respond with spin, accusations of bias, and conspiracy theories.

Excerpt: After the CRU emails were released in November, 2009, there was widespread accusations of misconduct against most of the scientists mentioned in the emails. Today, the Penn State University (PSU) inquiry committee investigating accusations made against Dr. Michael Mann publicly released its findings. The committee found that, with respect to the most serious three accusations out of four, “there exists no credible evidence” that Mann had committed research misconduct. The inquiry committee empaneled an investigation committee to look into the last accusation – that Mann had “seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community” – because they could make a determination about this and because

Only with such a review will the academic community and other interested parties likely feel that Penn State has discharged its responsibility on this matter.

More at the link.
  1. groups:
    Community,   Green
  2. tags:
    Science,  Climate Change,  Global Warming,  Penn State University,  1 more
  3.     
    |

10 comments // Three of four misconduct allegations against Michael Mann found to be without merit

  • angliss
    • 0
      angliss  

    • My apologies - I was confusing the National Research Council report (headed by Dr. Gerald North) with the Wegman report. The NRC report found that Mann's statistics were not optimal (and Mann agreed), but that the results were solid regardless. And this has been shown - repeatedly - by statisticians since.

      Ultimately, however, the science has moved on. As I pointed out already, newer research points to the MWP being regional rather than global in extent:

      "Persistent Positive North Atlantic Oscillation Mode Dominated the Medieval Climate Anomaly" Valérie Trouet, Jan Esper, Nicholas E. Graham, Andy Baker, James D. Scourse, and David C. Frank (3 April 2009) Science 324 (5923), 78. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1166349]

      Another paper found no evidence of the LIA in Antarctic marine sediment.

      "High-resolution Holocene climate record from Maxwell Bay, South Shetland Islands, Antarctica", K.T. Milliken, J.B. Anderson, J.S. Wellner, S.M. Bohaty, and P.L. Manley, GSA Bulletin, November/December 2009; V 121; no. 11/12; p 1711-1725; doi: 10.1130/B26478.1

      Mann published a paper with better statistics that showed pretty much the exact same thing as the original MBH paper did, making the original even stronger:

      "Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia" M E Mann, Z Zhang, M K Hughes, R S Bradley, S K Miller, S Rutherford, and F Ni; PNAS September 9, 2008 vol. 105 no. 36 13252-13257 doi: 10.1073/pnas.0805721105

      You're making one of the standard false equilvalency arguments, Dagum - you're equating the researchers with the science, and the science is, in the final analysis, independent of the researcher doing it. Either it stands up to review or it doesn't. At this point, Mann's research has stood up to repeated aggressive reviews. And now Mann's research conduct has as well.

      At this point, the arguments aren't over whether or not human activity is driving climate change - the evidence there is overwhelming and represents multiple, independent approaches. The only arguments left to have is how much the impact will be. Which is why deniers have started to focus on the WG2 report of the IPCC - the WG1 has been beaten on for the last several years and found to be solid. The WG2 report is a somewhat softer target.

    • 2 years ago
  • Dagum
    • 0
      Dagum  
    • angliss:

      Let’s set up some background to clear up the confusion. In 2005, the National Research Council (NRC) launched an investigation into Michael Mann’s hockey-stick graph that appeared in the IPCC report in 2001. This investigation was chaired by Dr. Gerald North and the findings were published in June of 2005. Simultaneously, the NAS did a second investigation called the Wegman report. This investigation was chaired by Dr. Wegman, one of America’s top statisticians and chair of the National Academy of Science’s Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics. The findings of this report were presented under oath to congress in July 2005.

      When Dr. North published his report in June 2005 five, he had a press conference in which he said Publicly “I have no cause to think that there was anything inappropriate, professionally."

      However Dr. North’s story changed a month later when he was haled into congress to testify under oath about Mann’s graph as the following congressional transcript reveals:

      (At the time Dr. North was called into Congress to testify, the Wegman report had concluded that formulas used to calculate Mann’s hockey stick graph were fixed so that you could put in random data and still get the hockey stick shaped graph. The Wegman report also address numerous instances of professional and scientific misconduct as well the lack of any reference the MWP. )

      CHAIRMAN BARTON. I understand that. It looks like my time is expired, so I want to ask one more question. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman's report?

      DR. NORTH. No, we don't. We don't disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.

      DR. NORTH. Do you mind if he speaks?

      CHAIRMAN BARTON. Yes, if he would like to come to the microphone.

      MR. BLOOMFIELD (North's statistician). Thank you. Yes, Peter Bloomfield. Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his coworkers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman

      So you see even the very statisticians and scientists that produced the first report that defended the hockey stick graph, conceded, under oath, that Mann's “Hockey Stick graph” was a sham.

    • 2 years ago
  • angliss
    • 0
      angliss  
    • Dagum:

      Nope, that's incorrect. They said that they agreed with Wegman's criticisms that the "some of the choices they made were inappropriate." The NRC report, and lots of other experts since, have pointed out that the "appropriate" choices resulted in negligible changes in the conclusions. Mann made those changes and published a correction with those negligible changes included.

      I find it revealing that you're not engaging on the science that has come since and supported the original conclusions with additional proxy records, new lines of inquiry, and so on.

      If you're interested in opening your mind a little, Deep Climate has researched the scholarly flaws in Wegman as well as the political machinations behind the Wegman report here: http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/22/wegman-and-rapp-on-tree-rings-a-divergence-pro...
      and here: http://deepclimate.org/2010/02/04/steve-mcintyre-and-ross-mckitrick-part-1-in-th...

      The proof is in the data, Dagum. New data has shown the MBH conclusions were largely correct. Science progresses. And new scientific data beats Wegman every time.

    • 2 years ago
  • Dagum
    • 0
      Dagum  

    • Whew. That’s a relief. He is only being investigated for one count of scientific fraud instead of four.

      I am glad Penn State decided to go easy on him, but I can't believe they are investigating Michael Mann at all. The man's done nothing but add to the credibility of Global Warming science. Without Michael Mann we wouldn’t have the wondrous and creative “hockey stick graph”. He also pioneered the aptly named “Mike’s nature trick” to help Global Warming scientists… ahhhhhhm... interpret data.

    • 2 years ago
  • angliss
    • 0
      angliss  
    • Dagum:

      Yeah, you're right. I mean, it's not like the temperature graph hasn't been verified and re-verified at least a half-dozen times or anything, including by the National Academy of Sciences.

      Seriously, though, he's been cleared of the fraud/suppression of evidence allegation, the allegation that he deleted/concealed emails, and the allegation that he used his position to keep critical papers out of the peer reviewed literature. The only allegation remaining is the LEAST serious - that he deviated from accepted practices for a scholar and researcher.

    • 2 years ago
  • Dagum
    • -3
      Dagum  
    • angliss:

      Haha! Are you serious??? The National Academy of Science completely debunked Mann’s Hockey stick graph in the 2006 Wegman report! They discovered the formulas used for calculating the graph were manipulated so that you could input random data and still get the hockey stick plot pattern!

      It was also revealed that when Mann assembled the data he conveniently left out the medieval warming period (950-1100) and subsequent mini- ice age that followed, giving the graph the appearance that the global temperature has only increased over the past 1,000 years.
      Mann’s Hockey stick graph, was so flawed that the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) took it out of their report in 2007 because it was too embarrassing.

      Oh yeah, and the charge that Michael Mann “deviated from accepted practices as a researcher” isn’t that serious. It’s not like science is based on research or anything. At least not Global Warming Science…

    • 2 years ago
  • angliss
    • 0
      angliss  
    • Image
    • Dagum:

      RE: Wegman - the hearings found that Mann's results were correct, and Mann issued a correction to his methodology as a result of the findings. Since Wegman, however, Mann published another massive paper that found that an even larger proxy record showed the exact same thing as the original 1998 MBH paper did - unprecedented temperatures in the instrumental record as compared to the last 2000 years of climate. And as I pointed out, at least a half dozen independent papers show that Mann's conclusions were, and still are, fundamentally correct.

      As far as the MWP, there's still no conclusive evidence that it affected more than the areas around the North Atlantic. In fact, this New Scientist piece points out a paper that found that the MWP was almost certainly regional in extent: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16892-natural-mechanism-for-medieval-warmi...

      BTW, the hockey stick is still in the latest IPCC. Sure, it's not called the "hockey stick," but given how solid the data underlying it is (borehole proxies, coral proxies, stalagmite proxies, ice core proxies, and tree ring proxies all in agreement), they'd have been fools to leave it out. Check out Figures 6.4 (hockey stick graphs of GHGs), 6.10 (temperatures), 6.13, and 6.14, just for a few. Sure, they may not have been generated by Mann, but they're all "hockey sticks."

      I don't know if you've noticed this or not, but your fellow deniers have largely given up on attacking the science underlying the causes of climate disruption. Instead, the recent attacks on the IPCC have targeted the estimates of impacts. I'd hazard a guess that this is because the science is so solid that it's all but unassailable any more, but the economic and regional impacts are less certain and so constitute easier targets.

      Maybe that should tell you something.

    • 2 years ago
  • Dagum
    • 0
      Dagum  
    • Image
    • angliss:

      Lol. Obviously you never read the Wegman Report:

      "It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent. Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility. Overall, our committee believes that Dr. Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.'
      Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported by the MBH98/99 analysis. As mentioned earlier in our background section, tree ring proxies are typically calibrated to remove low frequency variations. The cycle of Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age that was widely recognized in 1990 has disappeared from the MBH98/99 analyses, thus making possible the hottest decade/hottest year claim. However, the methodology of MBH98/99 suppresses this low frequency information. The paucity of data in the more remote past makes the hottest-in-a-millennium claims essentially unverifiable." --D.R. Edward Wegman's testimony from the Wegmann report.

      Nobody but an absolutely delusional Zealot would believe that the Wegman report was an endorsement of Mann’s “Hockey Stick graph." Every Global warming scientist hates the Wegman report because it ripped Mann’s graph to shreds. Usually they try to attack the report itself and say it was done by statisticians, instead "global warming" scientists. You are alone in your misinformed belief that the Wegman report had even a remotely positive impact on the Global warming cause.

      As far as Mann's new "corrected” GLOBAL WARMING dogma being included in the IPCC, it doesn't surprise me that Global warming alarmists see this as a ringing endorsement of Mann's teachings.

      Unfortunately the Church of Climatology now has to contend with fact that corruption reaches up to the highest levels of IPCC. ...

      http://current.com/items/92065699_ipcc-boss-unhinged-as-greenpeace-demands-resig...

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
  • jjammedjr
more from Community:
from the community

top videos