National Science Foundation Clears 'Climate-Gate' Scientist Of Any Misconduct

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The National Science Foundation has cleared climatologist and Penn State professor Michael Mann of any misconduct in the "Climate-Gate" controversy, which became a lightning rod for climate change skeptics in 2009.

In a memo Tuesday, the NSF's Inspector General's office said that "the research in question was originally completed over 10 years ago. Although the subject's data is still available and still the focus of significant critical examination, no direct evidence has been presented that indicates the subject fabricated the raw data he used for his research or falsified his results."

"Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct," the review concludes, "as defined under the NSF Research Misconduct Regulation, we are closing this investigation with no further action."

The investigation centered around thousands of e-mails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit in Great Britain, that showed scientists discussing how to keep research skeptical of climate change out of peer-review journals, among other things. Conservatives and climate skeptics latched onto the e-mails, using them as evidence that the idea of man-made climate change is not true. The e-mails did not, in fact, undermine the broad consensus that climate change is occurring.

Mann himself was accused of committing fraud when obtaining government funds for research into human-caused climate change while he was at the University of Virginia, and then manipulating the data.

Three major UK investigations previously exonerated the "Climate-Gate" scientists of any wrongdoing. Penn State conducted its own investigation that did not find Mann had done anything wrong.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/national_science_foundation_clears_climate-gate_sc.php?ref=fpb

[luckytxn 2,264]

The National Science Foundation has cleared climatologist and Penn State professor Michael Mann of any misconduct in the "Climate-Gate" controversy, which became a lightning rod for climate change skeptics in 2009.

In a memo Tuesday, the NSF's Inspector General's office said that "the research in question was originally completed over 10 years ago. Although the subject's data is still available and still the focus of significant critical examination, no direct evidence has been presented that indicates the subject fabricated the raw data he used for his research or falsified his results."

"Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct," the review concludes, "as defined under the NSF Research Misconduct Regulation, we are closing this investigation with no further action."

The investigation centered around thousands of e-mails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit in Great Britain, that showed scientists discussing how to keep research skeptical of climate change out of peer-review journals, among other things. Conservatives and climate skeptics latched onto the e-mails, using them as evidence that the idea of man-made climate change is not true. The e-mails did not, in fact, undermine the broad consensus that climate change is occurring.

Mann himself was accused of committing fraud when obtaining government funds for research into human-caused climate change while he was at the University of Virginia, and then manipulating the data.

Three major UK investigations previously exonerated the "Climate-Gate" scientists of any wrongdoing. Penn State conducted its own investigation that did not find Mann had done anything wrong.

http://tpmmuckraker...._sc.php?ref=fpb

The emails did in fact shatter the carefully laid plans of the theory to try to be a legitimate science. The emails showed a lot more than trying to keep opposition from appearing in peer reviewed circles. It showed them trying to assassination the character of opposing sciences. This and much more was brought out when the emails were published. It was the beginning of the awareness when other reputable sources showed that every GW study was faked and even outright falsified.

[Zero Sum 305]

The emails did in fact shatter the carefully laid plans of the theory to try to be a legitimate science. The emails showed a lot more than trying to keep opposition from appearing in peer reviewed circles. It showed them trying to assassination the character of opposing sciences. This and much more was brought out when the emails were published. It was the beginning of the awareness when other reputable sources showed that every GW study was faked and even outright falsified.

In your opinion, how exactly was the science shown to be illegitimate?

Please be succinct, to the point, proving that you can substantiate that well-known statistical methodology is in fact, a conspiracy to skew data. You need to point to specifics, not wave hands believing people here will merely take your word for it.

The National Science Foundation has cleared climatologist and Penn State professor Michael Mann of any misconduct in the "Climate-Gate" controversy, which became a lightning rod for climate change skeptics in 2009.

In a memo Tuesday, the NSF's Inspector General's office said that "the research in question was originally completed over 10 years ago. Although the subject's data is still available and still the focus of significant critical examination, no direct evidence has been presented that indicates the subject fabricated the raw data he used for his research or falsified his results."

"Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct," the review concludes, "as defined under the NSF Research Misconduct Regulation, we are closing this investigation with no further action."

The investigation centered around thousands of e-mails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit in Great Britain, that showed scientists discussing how to keep research skeptical of climate change out of peer-review journals, among other things. Conservatives and climate skeptics latched onto the e-mails, using them as evidence that the idea of man-made climate change is not true. The e-mails did not, in fact, undermine the broad consensus that climate change is occurring.

Mann himself was accused of committing fraud when obtaining government funds for research into human-caused climate change while he was at the University of Virginia, and then manipulating the data.

Three major UK investigations previously exonerated the "Climate-Gate" scientists of any wrongdoing. Penn State conducted its own investigation that did not find Mann had done anything wrong.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/national_science_foundation_clears_climate-gate_sc.php?ref=fpb

Clearly NSF must be participating in this conspiracy. There is no other 'logical' way around it. When all these preeminent scientists get together they booze it up, get strippers, and make stuff up. Some guy on the internet told me this as true.

[luckytxn 2,264]

In your opinion, how exactly was the science shown to be illegitimate?

Please be succinct, to the point, proving that you can substantiate that well-known statistical methodology is in fact, a conspiracy to skew data. You need to point to specifics, not wave hands believing people here will merely take your word for it.

Clearly NSF must be participating in this conspiracy. There is no other 'logical' way around it. When all these preeminent scientists get together they booze it up, get strippers, and make stuff up. Some guy on the internet told me this as true.

We went through this already in another thread and you know it. It was also probably the 3rd time I brought these facts here yet you and the other sheep refuse to believe anything contrary to what y'all want to believe. The fact is the emails showed a huge misconduct that started the avalanche of reversal to GW theory.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Of course when I am done driving later today I will be glad to repost the substantial repudiation of every major study or report that tried to show GW was happening. Or maybe dredge up the old thread where we discussed this before but of course very few GW enthusiasts was absent as usual.

[Zero Sum 305]

We went through this already in another thread and you know it. It was also probably the 3rd time I brought these facts here yet you and the other sheep refuse to believe anything contrary to what y'all want to believe. The fact is the emails showed a huge misconduct that started the avalanche of reversal to GW theory.

No, you posted news articles summarizing (incorrectly), the results they summarized; furthermore, you also post articles that actually conflict with your bias, in the data they present.

The emails showed statistical methodology to deal with outlier data. Simple and succint as that. If they have personal problems with other scientists, then that makes the scientists involved much like anyone else in the human endeavor- prone to the disease of crappy personalities. Just like here.

What I think, since you're using 'sheep' as an operative word now, is that you really have little clue what it is you're talking about.

Of course when I am done driving later today I will be glad to repost the substantial repudiation of every major study or report that tried to show GW was happening. Or maybe dredge up the old thread where we discussed this before but of course very few GW enthusiasts was absent as usual.

I asked you for your opinion, lucky. Can't give a succinct, specific opinion pointing to smoking guns can you? Of course not. That's not how science works, but you can still fool yourself all you want.

[luckytxn 2,264]

No, you posted news articles summarizing (incorrectly), the results they summarized; furthermore, you also post articles that actually conflict with your bias, in the data they present.

The emails showed statistical methodology to deal with outlier data. Simple and succint as that. If they have personal problems with other scientists, then that makes the scientists involved much like anyone else in the human endeavor- prone to the disease of crappy personalities. Just like here.

What I think, since you're using 'sheep' as an operative word now, is that you really have little clue what it is you're talking about.

I asked you for your opinion, lucky. Can't give a succinct, specific opinion pointing to smoking guns can you? Of course not. That's not how science works, but you can still fool yourself all you want.

You mean the articles about peer reviewing scientists debunking GW that I posted?

[Zero Sum 305]

You mean the articles about peer reviewing scientists debunking GW that I posted?

Read again. A scientific article isn't the same as a news article summarizing scientific articles incorrectly, and posting one science article that disagrees with your bias as proof that your bias is accurate is being quite foolish, to be kind with words.

[Zero Sum 305]

I guess we won't be reading a succinct, specific opinion from lucky any time soon huh?

[luckytxn 2,264]

I guess we won't be reading a succinct, specific opinion from lucky any time soon huh?

I will repost later when I am done driving again debunking EVERY major study EVER done in support of GW. Or do you expect me to quit working to AGAIN repost?

The National Science Foundation is a Federal agency that has to toe the line on whatever policy is wanted by the President of the country who chooses the members of the agency.

[Zero Sum 305]

I will repost later when I am done driving again debunking EVERY major study EVER done in support of GW. Or do you expect me to quit working to AGAIN repost?

The National Science Foundation is a Federal agency that has to toe the line on whatever policy is wanted by the President of the country who chooses the members of the agency.

lucky is that what I am asking for? (no)

It shouldn't take you more than a couple of minutes to avoid confusing yourself with misleading and conflicting information to your own point of view. I'm actually trying to help you clarify your position with evidence that actually supports your claim.

As for how NSF operates, once again you are swinging and missing.

You can post and repost faulty articles all you want and lie to yourself all you want.

Edited August 24, 2011 by Zero Sum

[luckytxn 2,264]

lucky is that what I am asking for? (no)

It shouldn't take you more than a couple of minutes to avoid confusing yourself with misleading and conflicting information to your own point of view. I'm actually trying to help you clarify your position with evidence that actually supports your claim.

As for how NSF operates, once again you are swinging and missing.

You can post and repost faulty articles all you want and lie to yourself all you want.

They are faulty when the facts don't agree with you but peer reviewed debunking is still considered a much needed resource. If the facts are ignored because they are not agreeable then it isn't real science.

[Zero Sum 305]

They are faulty when the facts don't agree with you but peer reviewed debunking is still considered a much needed resource. If the facts are ignored because they are not agreeable then it isn't real science.

What facts?

If you can't be expected to provide a simple opinion how can you be expected to provide adequate 'facts'?

We went over the minutiae in your posts, remember? And you refused to even acknowledge the points you posted yourself, clearly indicating you either have a problem with reading comprehension or you simply are trolling and sucking at it.

Maybe this time you'll actually read your own information and D'Oh yourself.

Edited August 24, 2011 by Zero Sum

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I remember the thread being referred to. There was a single direct resource posted on temperature feedback. Almost everything else in that thread were opinion's from journalists.

[Zero Sum 305]

I remember the thread being referred to. There was a single direct resource posted on temperature feedback. Almost everything else in that thread were opinion's from journalists.

And other threads where lucky posted post after post of 'articles' debunking GW science, without actually addressing science, methodology, or conclusions for that matter. I presume he'll continue dancing around the simple question of what his opinion on the actual science is with clear, concise answers.

Its only a matter of time he continues his song and dance.

Bless his poor heart.

(ETA) yep...

Its like he is a masochist or something.

Edited August 24, 2011 by Zero Sum