The result was hardly unexpected. Most experts who question climate disaster claims had assumed Penn State would produce a whitewash. PSU stood to lose significantly in reputation and dollars if it found that Dr. Mann had cheated on research and engaged in other conduct unbecoming of a university professor. What was surprising is the reason it gave for its “not guilty” finding.

Dr. Mann could not possibly be guilty, the report averred, because his “level of success in proposing research and obtaining funding” was possible only because he had “met or exceeded the highest standards of his profession.” Indeed, his research was consistently “judged to be outstanding by his peers.”

Mann’s innocence was further proven, said Penn State, by the awards and recognition he has received. For example, his “hockey stick” temperature graph for the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change played a significant role in the IPCC receiving the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Had his “conduct been outside the range of accepted practices, it would have been impossible for him to receive so many awards and recognitions,” the report argued.

Such a circular tautology would earn an “F” in introductory college reasoning courses. It is eerily similar to views taken by starry-eyed investors and SEC officials before they realized Bernie had Madoff with billions in client money. The Penn State report is akin to what Mrs. Madoff might issue following her “investigation” of his conduct, “investment” strategies, “standards,” accolades and awards.

Dr. Mann and many of his “peers” were implicated in the Climategate scandals, obstruction of legitimate FOIA requests via deletion of emails, manipulation of global warming temperature data and research, and the politicized funding system that kept them and their institutions awash in government/taxpayer dollars. They conferred awards and recognition on each other, excluded skeptical scientists from “peer reviews” of one another’s papers, and conspired to blackball editors who permitted the publication of professional papers by Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon, Patrick Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer and other climate experts whose work challenged the Mann-made global warming disaster thesis.

In so doing, Mann and his colleagues promoted laws, treaties and regulatory schemes that imposed higher prices and greater government/activist control over energy use, economic growth, and virtually everything modern societies eat, drive, make, ship and do. They, their institutions, and a host of politicians, bureaucrats, bankers and corporate executives thus had a direct stake in the science, politics and “renewable energy future” supported by billions of dollars in annual research grants – and in ensuring that no investigation upset this convenient golden apple cart.

It is these “accepted practices” and “highest standards of the profession” that are being protected here. It is for this reason that the “investigation” was conducted solely by Penn State – which permitted no contradictory evidence, no adverse witnesses, and no cross-examination of Dr. Mann or anyone else knowledgeable about his research, funding and alleged misconduct.

Iain Murray: Climategate inquiry glosses over the facts
By: Iain Murray
Examiner Staff Writer
July 20, 2010 When the Climategate e-mails were released last year, the evidence of misconduct by the scientists involved was so strong that the climate establishment was forced to commission a series of tribunals. Yet the conclusions of those inquiries are as specious as the science they were supposed to investigate. By asking the wrong questions — or not asking them at all — they have failed to advance the climate debate one iota.

The Climategate scandal began when an unknown party released thousands of e-mails taken from the servers of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (UEA and CRU). The e-mails appeared to show the world’s leading paleoclimatologists manipulating data to mislead, interfering with the peer review process and conspiring to delete e-mails in order to avoid freedom of information requirements.

Paleoclimatology — the study of past temperatures — is central to claims of unusual recent temperature. Most important is the “hockey stick” — a graph of historic temperatures that shows a sharp increase in recent years.

The tone of the Climategate inquiries was set by Britain’s parliamentary inquiry. With an election looming, the parliamentary committee could only hold one day of hearings, and found that the scientists involved had not attempted to mislead people.

Yet the hearings did not include testimony from the most severe critics of the hockey stick graphic, such as Canadians Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, who could have explained exactly why the e-mails did suggest impropriety.

The parliamentary inquiry was also assured by the UEA that the quality of the science would be reviewed by another inquiry to be headed by Lord Oxburgh. Yet Lord Oxburgh’s panel handed down a short report which did not examine the quality of the science at all.

The panel simply reviewed a selection of CRU papers — selected by the UEA itself — and pronounced itself satisfied that the scientific process was fair and proper. The chairman of the parliamentary committee, Labor legislator Phil Willis, told the BBC he “could not believe” this “sleight of hand.”

Yet this cursory review suggested deeper problems. In his review of the hockey stick itself, according to the Guardian newspaper, the panel’s statistician David Hand said that the scientists had used inappropriate statistical methods. Hockey stick co-author Michael Mann of Penn State University dismissed this as a “rogue opinion.”

The final review, conducted by former bureaucrat Sir Muir Russell, was compromised from the start. Its chief scientist, while purporting to be independent, was a former staff member of the CRU. Once again, it failed to interview the chief critics.

This panel did not examine the other e-mails on the CRU server, as it was supposed to do. It cleared the scientists of perverting the peer review process simply because their efforts did not succeed, thereby ignoring their clear intent as expressed in the e-mails.

Further, the inquiry failed to ask the most basic questions of the CRU scientists, such as whether Professor Phil Jones had actually deleted inconvenient e-mails. Britain’s freedom of information office said that the Cimategate e-mails provided the most cogent evidence imaginable that there had been efforts to avoid FOI requirements, yet the Muir Russell review did not investigate this appropriately.

Even this inadequate investigation, however, found that the way the hockey stick graph was handled was misleading. Imagine what it — and the parliamentary committee — would have found if there had been some witnesses for the prosecution.

Those who hope that these inquiries exonerate global warming science are engaging in wishful thinking. The Climategate e-mails are still there for all to read and the questions they raise remain unanswered. Until there are answers, Climategate rolls on.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Climategate-inquiry-glosses-over-the-facts-1001765-98788514.html#ixzz0uKRWAFjz

Looking at the gold chart: http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=$GOLD&p=D&b=5&g=0&id=p82924328412

Draw a line from the $1044 bottom to the $1085 low point and extend it all the way up and you will arrive at $1180. Gold broke below that support level but only marginally and it recovered very quickly. Now if one takes the $1266 high and the $1044 low and sets in place Fibonacci retracements the 38.2 retracement of that move comes in at $1180. Thus far gold is holding above its rising 150 day moving average another positive. It has also dropped $88 from its peak which fits the $100 pull back rule on gold. In other words this is an ideal time to buy. Dollar cost averaging works very well in a Secular bull market.

What happens when the fiat system finally comes to its eventual end is that only the thing which once gave the currency value (gold and silver) will be the only generally accepted valuable asset that can be used to purchase other valuable assets.

I could not agree with you more.

MattF: ” Frankly, if you’re willing to forgive my stumbling ignorance and occasional contention when facts seem contradictory, I’ll try to remain open and willing to learn.”

That is all I ask. Keep an open mind. Unfortunately, we spend to much time defending our positions and not enough time listening to the opinions of others. Sometimes we are wrong. In my assumptions, I always come from the stand point of “being wrong.” If I cannot prove myself wrong then I am more assured that I am right. For example, I come from the inflationist point of view yet have spent a great deal of time trying to convince myself that deflation will be the primary issue. I actually read more from the deflationist camp than I do from the inflationist camp. But no matter how hard I try to prove the opposing point of view, I keep coming back to the inflationist side. So far the chips are all falling where I thought they would. The wiff of deflation is being fought with all out reflation, which will lead to failed confidence in the currency. Inflation / hyperinflation is a currency event not an economic one.

MattF: “Keep in mind, too, that science-minded folk tend to be cantankerous. The requirement that statements be backed up with fact ”

We should all back up our opinions with facts, but keep in mind that economics, like history, cannot be analyzed within the context of a lab or a controlled environment. Truth is determined by evidence that is gathered in less than ideal environments. Economics deals more with how human beings interact in a given system that is affected by culture, religous beliefs, moral standards, and …..are your ready for this scientific advancements / technology.

The scientific mind concentrates on the details like scientific process, accuracy in data collected, controlled study, etc. Economics cannot be viewed in this manner. While some of the scientific principles can be applied one must look at overall outcomes. History is our best source for data and results, and while we cannot say what the precise outcome will be (certainly the time frame is impossible to determine with any accuracy) we can get an idea by seeing what past societies have dealt with when they embarked on certain paths.

The bottomline is that economics is as much an art as it is a science, especially when it comes to predicting the future.

MattF: “Interesting argument! I need to mull that one over.”

And that is what we should all do as we listen to each other’s positions. The search for knowledge cannot be done in a vacuum, listening only to our own musings. I recall reading the definition of an expert many years ago. “An expert is someone who has stopped thinking….He knows.” or “An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less.” Self proclaimed experts cannot listen to anyone else. Heaven help me, for I know that sometimes I come across like an expert.

There are many similarities. History does not repeat but it sure does rhyme. The 1929 to 1949 stock market was a horrific Secular Bear Market. But you must remember that back then the US dollar consisted of Silver and the US dollar was backed by gold. This is no longer the case, and the Federal Reserve can print money to its heart’s content. This has been the case since 1971 when Nixon closed the gold window ending convertibiltiy.

When you price the stock market in terms of gold it has already suffered a 80%+ decline. In 2001 the Dow traded at 45 oz. of gold. DOW was at 11,500 and gold was at $255. The DOW closed today at 10229 and gold ended at $1192; so the DOW is now at 8.5 oz. of gold. Before all is said and done, I expect the DOW to trade at a one to one ratio to the price of gold. Extreme you say? It did it twice in the 20th century. In 1933 the DOW hit 36 and gold was valued at $35. Then again in 1980, the DOW was at 850 and gold peaked at $886.

What investors have to realize is that inflation is a deceptive destroyer of wealth. It matters not how much money you have, it only matters what your money will buy. So the market can go to 1,000,0000 but what good does that do if gasoline goes to $1000 per gallon or it takes $500 to buy a loaf of bread. In every inflation, the stock market of the inflating country has gone ballistic in nominal terms. In real terms (what the money would buy) it devasted everyone. Investors in companies that survived faired better than those that put their money in “safe” investments like bonds or certificates of deposit. When the money was eventually destroyed those that held stock certificates at least held real assets.

Gold is an insurance policy. When you hold a gold or silver coin in your hand there is nothing between you and the asset. Gold has no counter party risk. It has intrinsic value. When you hold a fist full of dollars in your hand, the value of those dollars is dependent on the “full faith and credit of the US.” Fiat currency has counter party risk. Gold and silver have no counter party risk. A 1 oz. gold coin has the same value in the US as it does in China, England, France, Mexico, etc. It is valuable because man, for whatever reason has deemed it so. GOLD AND SILVER ARE INSURANCE POLICIES AGAINS CURRENCY DEVALUATIONS. If you want to see the current balance sheet of the US go to this site:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Be sure to check out “Unfunded Liabilities.” By 2020, the interest on the debt will be the biggest budget item. The US has 3 alternatives. It can tax, It can default or it can inflate. Taxing is out of the question since you can tax the American people at 100% and we would still be going into debt. Default is not politically feasible since Soc Security recipients would be in an upoar. That leaves inflate. By the hidden tax of inflation the debt will be eliminated. In the end a new currency will be introduced. Argentina went through several currency devaluations over the years so the final exchange rate was 100,000,000,000 to 1. 100 billion old Argentinian pesos for one new one. Those that held gold or dollars survived. Germany 1919 to 1924 underwent a horrible inflation. In 1914 the exchange rate to the US dollar was 4 to 1. By 1924 the exchange rate was 4 trillion marks to 1 US dollar. The Weimar government issued a new currency the Retten Mark, which was exchanged at the ratio of 1,000,000,000,000 old Reichmarks to 1 Retten Mark.

I’d argue that you’re compartmentalizing science.

While it is certainly possible for individual disciplines (especially certain engineering disciplines; pure research never fares so well, since those in power tend to dislike it when scientific findings contradict their statements, and one never knows when those findings will pop up in pure research) to flourish under controlling regimes, it is unprecedented for all of science to do so well. Note, for example, the rise of anti-Semitic “scientific” polemic under Nazi Germany (even going so far as to attempt to construct arguments against so-called “Jewish Science” to refute relativity).

Mike: So are you asking that others, like me for instance, become totally knowledgeable about science when you are not willing to become totally knowledgeable about other subjects?

No. But I do ask that those who make a claim to scientific accuracy (e.g., “Creationism is fully consistent with ‘real’ science!”, or “Evolution is inconsistent with ‘real’ science!”) have a passing knowledge about how science is done. (Frankly, it would be refreshing if that kind of basic knowledge were more widespread in any event.)

So I try to bring evidence to the table that contradicts what the creationists say (e.g., “No organism has ever evolved new features or new functionality!”, or “An organism’s genome cannot gain new ‘information’!”, or “Disorder always increases!”, or “Evolution isn not falsifiable!”), and occasionally try to correct misconceptions about how science is done when it is relevant to a particular argument.

I don’t ask that people remember every detail I bring to the table. But it would be nice if they stopped using falsified arguments over and over without addressing why they’re still supposedly valid.

(Frankly, if you’re going to make scientific claims, you might need to do a lot of research to make sure the facts really do back up what you say. There’s not much I can do to impact that.)

Mike: I will allow you to give me scientific principles to consider and you allow me to give you a few things to think about regarding economics, history, and financial matters.

I’d appreciate that. Frankly, if you’re willing to forgive my stumbling ignorance and occasional contention when facts seem contradictory, I’ll try to remain open and willing to learn.

Keep in mind, too, that science-minded folk tend to be cantankerous. The requirement that statements be backed up with fact (and preferably experiment) is always in the back of the brain. Arguments, even about science matters, tend to get heated and passionate. Please don’t take any of this as an attack; it’s how I’ve grown accustomed to learning, by battering ideas and accepting the survivors.

Mike: I do not need to go through the orginal records of the Soviet Union to know that Communism is a failed system.

Well, right, but — and I trust you know this — it would seem to take more than a casual glance to determine why it failed. Generally speaking, it’s the underlying analysis that I completely lack ability to put into context when it comes to various economic arguments — the corroborating evidence, what would render the theory being advanced falsifiable, that sort of thing.

Mike: One does not have to be a rocket scientist or a Phd. economist to know that whenever power is concentrated in the hands of a few, the many will suffer. History has taught us that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Agreed. And it’s certainly the case that with that in mind, your observation that (for example) the Fed has never been audited is certainly unsettling. But I lack the data that would get me from suspicion of to evidence of wrongdoing.

Mike: I cannot separte the two. It would be like separating the central nervous system from the circulatory system. Which one is more important?

Interesting argument! I need to mull that one over.