Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Science And Society

For Everyone Who Wishfully Thinks That Michael Mann Was Exonerated

31 Comments

In light of all that’s happened, including continued UVA stonewalling, I say that he is the Jerry Sandusky of science.

[Update Saturday morning]

For those wondering, here are the parallels, that John O’Sullivan pointed out in November after the Sandusky case came to light:

Mann was never exonerated because the charges against him were never investigated. In both the Mann and Sandusky controversies the following points about Spanier’s stewardship are equally valid:

1. Both the Sandusky and Mann cover-ups involved a poorly executed investigation.

2. Both investigations saw the president making untrue statements.

3. Both involve an ethos that successful men can do no wrong; and the more famous and powerful they are, the more immune they are from scrutiny.

4. Both demonstrate a strong inclination to circle the wagons and seemingly show no interest in truth or justice.

5. Both involve extensive evidence going back years from a number of different sources and involving a variety of issues which should have raised red flags.

6. Spanier’s ‘investigations’ never interviewed witnesses against Mann or Sandusky.

But other than that, there is absolutely nothing in common.

[Bumped]

31 thoughts on “For Everyone Who Wishfully Thinks That Michael Mann Was Exonerated”

    1. OK.

      So, is that the best you’ve got?

      Let me put it another way. Do you understand my point? And why we might be a little skeptical of the whitewash, given everything else, including the continued stonewalling by UVA?

      1. It’s spot on though and pretty daft even by your low standards.

        Love the Heartland panic links too… Enjoying the primaries as much as I am I hope!

      2. It’s pretty standard for people who feel a ruling that has ideological ramifications has gone against what they wanted to scream “WHITE WASH!!”

        What’s your case that it’s a white wash? Got evidence, or is it a white wash just because the ruling wasn’t the one you wanted?

          3. Which is pretty much the definition of “whitewash”, since a whitewash is designed to produce no substance. With both Mann and Sandusky the story was “We looked into all the innuendo and found nothing, noth-ing. Move along.”

            Penn State makes too much money off football revenue and now climate research grants for their administration to expose a scandal that could threaten that funding. So they not only look the other way, they hide the evidence behind a smokescreen.

            Sandusky only harmed a hundred or so kids. Mann will harm all of them, making third world children stay mired in poverty and making Western children worse off than their parents or grandparents.

    2. “So this sick attempt to link Mann with an accused sex predator continues. Disgusting.”

      I agree. Sex predators seek to destroy only a few people, rather than billions of impoverished people worldwide, followed by civilization. Anyone comparing the two owes an apology to sex predators everywhere.

  2. For entertainment, Phil Plait is here.

    I imagine there will be a lot of spin about how this quote is out of context, or a typo, or something alone those lines.

    You’re all over it Phil. Like the UAE eMails:

    The emails released weren’t damning at all, and didn’t show scientists tinkering with or faking data

    What a mess.

  3. The point about people being so dedicated to a concept/ideal that they will prostitute themselves to defend it when it is being effectively dismantled… is well made.

        1. In the case of the investigations into Mann while he’s been at Penn State, yes, exactly the same people who protected Sandusky.

      2. And he was “cleared” by whom? The same people who protected Jerry Sandusky?

        Bizarre logic, if Fred in his case against state bullying employs a barrister who has previously successfully defender a pedophile Fred must, in some way, be equivalent to the pedophile??

      3. It is funny to see how kneejerk the responses are. They are so excited and enraged that they can’t even manage to write a sentence correctly.

  7. Regarding the piece from O’Sullivan, #2 I don’t know which statement are alleged to be “untrue” so can’t judge.

    #1, 3-5 are opinion.

    #6 is false.

    1. #6 is false.

      Such interviews should be public knowledge (at least for the Dr Mann investigation). All you have to do is find one such witness to disprove Sullivan’s claim. It’s worth noting at this point, Steve McIntyre’s take on this report:

      The only interviews mentioned in the report (aside from Mann) are with Gerry North and Donald Kennedy, editor of Science. [Since they are required to provide a transcript or summary of all interviews, I presume that the Inquiry did not carry out any other interviews.] What does Donald Kennedy know about the matter? These two hardly constitute “looking at issues from all sides”. [A CA reader observed below that “North [at a Rice University event] admitted that he had not read any of the EAU e-mails and did not even know that software files were included in the release.”] They didn’t even talk to Wegman. Contrary to Spanier’s claim, they did not make the slightest effort to talk to any critic or even neutral observer.

      Similarly, Spanier got fired (excuse me, “resigned voluntarily”) because he expressed unconditional support for two officials who had failed to report a child’s rape to the police. It wasn’t an investigation, but it was a public judgment made without considering witnesses against these officials or expressing concern for possible victims.

  8. Prove it. Honestly, what kind of person argues …

    Got evidence, or is it a white wash just because the ruling wasn’t the one you wanted??

    … and then spews opinion right back? Where’s your proof?

    1. I’ll stick with the principle that he has to be proved guilty, rather than the traditional Weder position that people are assumed guilty and have to prove themselves innocent.

      The argument’s been used that what might otherwise be private communications should be publicly available because they were made on the employers time, and that, because UVA and Mann don’t want them made public people assume “Skeptics” believe they must contain some climate alarmist secrets.

      It’s far more likely that the reason UVA and Mann don’t want them made public is because they were intended as private (with lots of juicy opinions and gossip about this person and that person). Of course it can be argued that if communications are made on employers time Mann shouldn’t have any claim to privacy, but the reality is that virtually all employees have private conversations on the employers time, and that, understandably, none of us would want to risk the contents of those “private” conversations spread all over the global media.

      I’d have hoped that most libertarians would jump to the defense of peoples rights to keep their own affairs private, and not be forced by the powers that be to submit to intrusions on their privacy, unfortunately most libertarians are “fair weather” libertarians, they abandon their principles as soon as they don’t suit their current agenda.

      1. What Karl said. When I worked for a big company the policy was clear – you don’t own the messages sent on a company computer system and should have no expectation of privacy. As a publicly funded group, they should already know this, but they were caught being sloppy yet again.

        If it quacks like a duck, Andrew …

        As an aside, the reply button seems unreliable lately …

  9. I’d have hoped that most libertarians would jump to the defense of peoples rights to keep their own affairs private, and not be forced by the powers that be to submit to intrusions on their privacy, unfortunately most libertarians are “fair weather” libertarians, they abandon their principles as soon as they don’t suit their current agenda.

    Dr Mann accepts public funding. That’s how he has compromised his rights in this area. His affairs are no longer private.

  10. I’d like to see someone fisk Wikipedia.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

    I’m especially interested in this passage:

    Many commentators quoted one email referring to “Mike’s Nature trick” which Jones used in a 1999 graph for the World Meteorological Organization, to deal with the well-discussed tree ring divergence problem “to hide the decline” that a particular proxy showed for modern temperatures after 1950, when measured temperatures were rising. These two phrases from the emails were also taken out of context by climate change sceptics…as though they referred to a decline in measured global temperatures, even though they were written when temperatures were at a record high.

Comments are closed.