Mann and the press
It’s not the crime but the cover-up: Michael Mann refuses to answer reasonable questions from a reporter for The Dailer Caller.
Tag: climategate
An update on the Dept of Energy’s hold on monies to East Anglia
This story about the Department of Energy’s decision in May to suspend payments to the University of East Anglia because of the climategate scandal might very well be a Potemkin village. The story notes that they are placing a hold on $200k. However, Anthony Watts notes that DOE has probably provided East Anglia significantly more funds, in the millions. The suspension in funds then is only about one specific and not very large contract, with nothing said about the other funding. Note also that the hold was placed in May, pending the results of East Anglia’s own investigation. Since that investigation was a whitewash, I expect DOE to release these funds in near future.
More climategate whitewash
Meanwhile, it turns out that the climategate investigation of Phil Jones at the University of East Anglia allowed Jones himself to review and approve the evidence that the investigation would look at!
U.S. government suspends funding to East Anglia University
The U.S. Department of Energy has temporarily suspended all research funding to the University of East Anglia, pending its review of the climategate controversy.
Clive Cook’s take on climategate whitewashes
Still have doubts whether the climategate investigations were awhitewash? Then read this blistering condemnation by Clive Cook, senior editor at The Atlantic and a global warming advocate.
Climategate whitewash
It appears that the chief investigator of the recently released climategate investigation of Phil Jones and the University of East Anglia never attended any of the investigation’s interviews of Phil Jones. What a strange way to do an investigation!
More questions about climategate inquiry
More questions are being raised about the various climategate investigations, this time in the UK Parliament. Key quote:
Climategate may finally be living up to its name. If you recall, it wasn’t the burglary or use of funding that led to the impeachment of Nixon, but the cover-up. Now, ominously, three inquiries into affair have raised more questions than there were before.
East Anglia violated FOI rules
The University of East Anglia has been found in violation of the UK’s freedom of information law in connection with the climategate emails, suggesting again and strongly that the final conclusions of the investigation of Phil Jones was a whitewash.
Another climategate whitewash
Updated. Also, bad link fixed. Sorry.
Another climategate whitewash. Phil Jones, at the center of the scandal, has been reinstated by the University of East Anglia. Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit has an excellent analysis of the some of the absurd rationalizations the investigation adopted to clear Jones.
This Daily Mail article on the investigation gives a somewhat balanced description.
Another climategate whitewash?
Another climategate whitewash? The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency has reviewed the 2007 UN IPCC report and decided that, though the report did have some really embarrassing errors (including some new ones uncovered by the review), the IPCC’s conclusion — that global warming is happening and that it is caused by humans — must still be correct.
Press Release Journalism
The Penn State University investigation report on Michael Mann might be a whitewash, but what is really a travesty is the way some so-called professional journalists have covered this story. First, go and read the these two news articles at the New York Times and the Washington Post. I’ll wait till you’re back.
All done? Okay. Note how both news articles say very little about the report itself, other than its conclusions. Instead, the news articles follow the same boring news formula for writing these kinds of stories:
- First, report the conclusions in the opening paragraphs.
- Then, follow with a quote from a supporter of those conclusions, combined with a quick very superficial summary of the controversy.
- Top this with by another quote from a supporter, slamming the opposition.
- Then, add for balance a single quote from an opponent. (I find it ironic and a bit hilarious that both news articles went to the same global-warming skeptic for this particular quote, suggesting that these so-called professional reporters have very limited contact with the skeptics in the scientific community.)
- Finally, finish things off with another quote from a supporter to emphasize the correctness of the report’s conclusions.
Neither news article provides the reader with the slightest analysis of the investigation report itself. Neither bothers to describe its superficial nature and its almost obsessive desire to find Michael Mann innocent.
Finally, both news articles read as if the reporters barely read the report itself and knew little about the content of the East Anglia emails. Instead, their stories read as if they simply scanned the press releases about the report and worked from those.
Another example of press release journalism at its worst.
Another Climategate Whitewash
The investigation at Pennsylvania State University of Michael Mann and his behavior as revealed in the East Anglia emails was released today, clearing him of all but one minor charge. You can read the actually report here. I suggest you do, as you will be amazed by the absurdity of this so-called investigation.
First, the manner in which the university investigated and then cleared Mann of the main charges was a joke. The panel reviewed the East Anglia emails, then brought Mann in to answer questions. When he essentially told them he had done nothing wrong, they decided that was evidence enough, clearing him of three of the four main charges.
Then, on the one remaining minor charge, the sharing of other people’s unpublished manuscripts without permission, the panel brought in other scientists for independent opinions, though only one of which, Richard Lindzen, is a skeptic of Mann’s work. Lindzen’s reaction when he learned he was not being interviewed on any of the main charges is quite entertaining. To quote the report itself,
When told that the first three allegations against Dr. Mann were dismissed at the inquiry stage . . . Dr. Lindzen’s response was: “It’s thoroughly amazing. I mean these are issues that he explicitly stated in the emails. I’m wondering what’s going on?”
The Investigatory Committee members did not respond to Dr. Lindzen’s statement.
On this final charge, the committee decided only that Mann’s distribution without permission of other people’s unpublished manuscripts was “careless and inappropriate,” and then finished by essentially saying in very stern words: next time, ask first.
Not surprisingly, the New York Times report on the conclusions of the investigation is somewhat joyous.
Unfortunately, this whitewash will only do harm to the reputation of science and the modern scientific community, and will almost certainly increase the general public’s distrust of climate research (and the reporting of it by mainstream publications like the NY Times).