Michael “Piltdown” Mann counting tree rings to detect warming and cooling in the past. He may as well have studied chicken entrails.

[UPDATE: Professor Phil Jones of East Anglia University has just conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon...Really?]

I outlined some possible legal troubles for Michael Piltdown Mann of Penn State University stemming from his “hide the decline” manipulations to his climate research data in an earlier post, The Hockey Stick Trick Legal Troubles.

Now a group called Campus Reform, which includes Penn State students, near-by residents and community leaders are calling for a fair and independent investigation of Michael Mann and his involvement in Climategate:

The University has a conflict of interest, and should not conduct an internal investigation without external oversight. The Rally for Academic Integrity will take place in front of the Hetzel Union Building (HUB) on Penn State’s University Park Campus (Pollock Road entrance) at 12:00. This Rally for Academic Integrity is jointly sponsored by PSU Young Americans for Freedom and The 9-12 Project of Central PA.

Penn State has conducted an inquiry and given a report — The Mann Inquiry Report — purporting to exonerate Mann of any foul play but that has not quelled the controversy over Mann’s participation in presenting false and manipulated scientific data to support the hoax of man-made global warming:

Penn State’s internal inquiry into Michael Mann’s alleged scientific misconduct concluded with the virtual exoneration of his behavior, and ignored key evidence in the Climategate scandal. As feared, this inquiry was little more than a whitewash—an assault on academic integrity.

First, the university’s internal review consisted of three Penn State employees who have strong incentives to protect the school’s reputation and the millions of dollars it receives from global warming research grants. There was no external oversight.

Second, the review consisted of looking at a mere 47 emails (out of thousands in question), interviewing Mann, analyzing materials he submitted, and asking only two biased sources about his credibility. Penn State hardly conducted a “thorough investigation” of alleged wrongdoing by Mann.

Penn State is accused of relying on little or no evidence beyond Mann’s own assertions of innocence:

In short, Mann’s own claim of innocence is taken as proof of his innocence. Moreover, parts of the report are almost fawning in their description of Mann (e.g. “All were impressed by Dr. Mann’s composure and his forthright responses”). “This type of language would be more appropriate in a letter of recommendation than in a serious investigation,” commented Penn State sophomore, and YAF chair, Samuel Settle.

Third, Penn State’s internal review ignored key passages in the emails under scrutiny. While the committee examined the use of the word “trick” in correspondence between Mann and colleague Phil Jones, it failed to explore the purpose of Mann’s “trick” to “hide the decline [in global temperatures],” which clearly suggests a manipulation of the data.

Penn State’s internal review of a few emails by vested interests inspires no confidence that Mann did not engage in scientific misconduct—which is precisely why an independent and external investigation of Michael Mann and Climategate is essential in order to reach a credible conclusion.

No kidding.

The report released by Penn State to which the Rally for Academic Integrity takes issue is here.

A Blog sympathetic to Michael Piltdown Mann has a post about the report, Michael Mann Exonerated. The blog post offers no facts or other evidence that I could find but rather statements and conclusions such as this one:

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.

Footnote: The word trick as used in this email has stirred some suspicion. However, trick is often used in context to describe a mathematical insight that solves the problem. For example, see in a classic text on quantum mechanics by David Parks: “The foregoing explanation of the velocity paradox involves no new assumptions; the basic trick, the representation of a modulated wave as the superposition of two (or more) unmodulated ones, has already been used to explain interference phenomena…” pg. 21, Introduction to Quantum Theory, David Parks, Third Edition, Dover 1992.

To me this is a naked statement that is non-reponsive to the charges. The example given by the blogger doesn’t seem the same as what Michael Mann is accused of. In the example someone named David Parks is explaining a method, he is clearly not trying to “trick” anyone. Mann is accused of using a “trick” in the presentation of data to hide the truth of that data, to alter the result that would otherwise logically follow. But read the whole thing at the link above and decide for yourself.

Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit is the biggest obstacle to the idea that Mann has been exonerated by the Penn State inquiry and puts the argument to rest, in my view. First, he reviews the procedures that should be followed in the type of “inquiry” conducted by Penn State as outlined in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’s Office of Research Integrity (ORI), and finds the Mann Inquiry Report failed to follow those procedures. Says McIntyre, “The Mann Inquiry Report is a rather odd document, when assessed against ORI procedures.” He then goes on to outline where the Mann Inquiry Report departs from the ORI, rendering its conclusions suspect. Or perhaps worthless. Those are my words.

Michael Piltdown Mann has brought big bucks to Penn State in research grants. That can be expected to change as Climategate intensifies. A new Penn State “inquiry” then will likely reach vastly different conclusions. As usual, to find out what’s going on one should always follow the money.

Agreement with me is never the goal here, only CIG. What is CIG? It is something I value highly; it stands for Candor, Intelligence, and Good Faith. Unless one holds oneself out as having special expertise in a certain area, CIG is usually all that can be asked of anyone in any debate or discussion.