Mann act: 'Hockey stick' scientist returns to UVA

While I appreciate the Hook covered the event, I think the opening line of this article - "It's not wrong to be wrong," says Michael Mann, author of the famous "hockey stick graph," the controversial image of a recent spike in global temperatures." - implies his original client model was wrong. While Michael Mann did say "It's not wrong to be wrong." he was referring to an audience question about the research of a UC Berkley professor, and not his original client model. The Hook misleadingly took this quote out of context, which is ironic given that parts of his speech dealt with taking things out of context.

Mr. Mann is a quack in the halls of academia. His research is vague and unsupported, and costs large amounts of money and in the end appeared to knowingly "altered". Out here in the real world thats the basis for fraud. Mean while, his fellow UVA fellows continued to pump in money and then throw up the walls when someone called him on his work. Yes people make mistakes, however they own up to them and move on - or sell a book crying about it. What a rip off.

@maxbrando What is the basis for which Michael Mann should be prosecuted? Can you provide a verified, specific example of Michael Mann lying? Cuccinelli's fraud investigation was thrown out of court because the judge said that Cuccinelli provided no objective basis to show that Michael Mann committed any fraud. Perhaps you have some additional information?

@CCC Michael Mann was cleared of wrongdoing by numerous investigation, yet you claim he committed fraud. What is your evidence of this?

@Big Sigh As above, can you provide a verified, specific example of Michael Mann lying?

deleted by moderator

Why are so many people so impassioned to not think that climate change is a possibility?

I mean, whether or not climate change is "real" or not, you can still drive your car and do the things you want to.

Sheesh.

I think a good view into Mann's operations can be heard in Schilling's interview of Dr. Charles Battig on Jan. 17th. A podcast is at http://www.wina.com/The-Schilling-Show/3063561. This climate change/global warming non-issue is actually all about money. What happened tto that state grant of $475,000 anyway? Who's selling books and for how much? Dr. Battig seems to be doing a great deal of research for no compensation whatsoever. It is funny that the climatologists told us in the nineteen seventies that we were headed for another Ice Age. Of course the climate warms between freezes.

Dawg- why do you feel that coal, oil and gas finite resources? They are naturally replenished on a scale much larger than they are being consumed, are they not?

@skip, fossil fuels are called fossil fuels because it took millions of years to formulate. Yes, it is finite and yes we will run out. The sad thing is that we will not prepare for this and we will wake up one day to realize that our way of life is over. Most food production is fossil fuel based, so get ready for a total world food supply collapse...it is only a matter of time.

What is Mann afraid of? Why won't he release his data and other documents to the public?
If a scientist has hard data, valid, honest data, to support a theory, why not be willing to open it up for scrutiny to the people that gave you some of the money to do the research?

And if he were a genuine scientist, he would not come to a scientific symposium to discuss politics or his personal legal troubles. He would present his WORK. Instead he plays the brave victim.

Throughout the earth's history, there has certainly been climate change. Whether you can make any truly long-term predictions with any degree of accuracy by studying the last few hundreds years (which is really just a blip on the earth's radar), remains to be seen. It will take an even greater leap of faith to assign the blame for it on man's consumption of resources. I am a skeptic, too, particularly when you have some of the loudest Chicken Littles creating a global industry (carbon credits and the like) to line their own pockets.

I would guess that Mr. Mann accepts the fact that we should also be skeptical of his claims.........

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."
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".
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".
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".
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 "The scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt".
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."
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".
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".
In August 2011, the National Science Foundation concluded "Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed".