SEE ANY PATTERN HERE?

 

Following the scandal known as Climate Gate there were nine investigations to get out the “facts” and exonerate Mann, Jones, Hanson, and others involved in manipulating data and manipulating computer predictions on the “settled science” of Global Warming, or as it is now known, Climate Change.

 

1) In February 2010, the Pennsylvania State University released an Inquiry Report that investigated any ‘Climategate’ emails involving Dr Michael Mann, a Professor of Penn State’s Department of Meteorology. They found 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”. On “Mike’s Nature trick”, they concluded “The so-called “trick”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.”

 

2) In March 2010, the UK government’s House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published a report finding that the criticisms of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) were misplaced and that CRU’s “Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community”.

 

3) In April 2010, the University of East Anglia set up an international Scientific Assessment Panel, in consultation with the Royal Society and chaired by Professor Ron Oxburgh. The Report of the International Panel assessed the integrity of the research published by the CRU and found “no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit”.

 

4) In June 2010, the Pennsylvania State University published their Final Investigation Report, determining “there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann”.

 

5) In July 2010, the University of East Anglia published the Independent Climate Change Email Review report. They examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that “we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.“

 

6) In July 2010, the US Environmental Protection Agency investigated the emails and “found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets.”

 

7) In September 2010, the UK Government responded to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report, chaired by Sir Muir Russell. On the issue of releasing data, they found “In the instance of the CRU, the scientists were not legally allowed to give out the data“. On the issue of attempting to corrupt the peer-review process, they found “The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers“.

 

8) In February 2011, the Department of Commerce Inspector General conducted an independent review of the emails and found “no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data”.

 

9) In August 2011, the National Science Foundation concluded “Finding no research misconduct or other matter…”

 

 

Michael Mann’s Pennsylvania State University…beneficiary of his prolific research publications and government grants,

 

The UK government House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, eager to protect the prestige and legitimacy of the University of East Anglia where Hanson and Jones practiced and who put the UK at the forefront of the Global Warming movement,

 

University of East Anglia, where Hansen, Jones, and a huge cadre of disciples brought millions of pounds into the institution,

 

NSF which is deeply invested in promoting the “settled science” of  Anthropogenic Global Warming to justify government programs to fight the “problem of the century”,

 

DOC IG report dealt with protecting NOAA but did not exonerate the perpetrators of the “settled science” fraud, and,

 

The EPA, an agency totally biased in favor of AGW researchers and against skeptics…the EPA actually designates CO2 as a pollutant!

 

The investigators were, therefore, anything but impartial.  Their products show a pattern of  negligence or cover up.   An impartial jury of scientists not living off Climate Change grants should have looked into this scandal.  Climate Gate remains a pure violation of the standards of the “scientific method.”    The fraud will go down in scientific history with such prior frauds as the “Cold Fusion discovery” which, like Climate Change junk science, turned out to be based on fake data.

 

By Mathew Hurwitz