NOT SO COMMON THREADS - Dr. Spanier and PSU Climate Scientists

 THE DEFENSE OF PSU SCIENTIST PROFESSORS

 AND THE DISMISSAL OF DR. GRAHAM SPANIER  

PART II of the Not So Common Threads Series. 

Part I of this "not so common threads series" exposed the bias of Louis Freeh due to his association with Opus Dei, and a burning desire to turn attention to Penn State and away from his church, the pedophile priests and fellow Opus Dei Robert Hanssen. Perceived conflicts between science and religion are well known. It is not my purpose to dismiss the importance of either or to attack religious people. I can believe in God and trust science.

The Integrity of PSU has been attacked in more ways than you likely know. Any university is a place for research and exploration of ideas. Universities should be free from ideological attack by political interests. When professors and researchers are threatened with removal by political parties a line has been crossed that should never be breached. Your opinion of research results does not alter the fact that research is an inviolable interest of the public and the university system. 

Dr. Graham Spanier was called to Harrisburg by PA Republican office holders who demanded Spanier fire PSU Climate Scientists and researchers. That was a violation of everything a university is supposed to be. Your opinion concerning Anthropogenic Global Warming is not the issue. The issue is the freedom and importance of researchers at public institutions of higher learning and the academic integrity of your university. 

Dr. Spanier has long maintained that Gov. Corbett was behind the charges against him. It is clear that Corbett in collusion with John Surma orchestrated the ambush of Spanier and Paterno at an "emergency" meeting of the Board of Trustees.

The connections and parallels in the references below are compelling, and they are not mine. The last campaign for Governor held more than usual importance to Penn Staters since the makeup of the Board of Trustees and a potential reversal of the narrative concerning the Freeh Fiction became possible with Corbett's defeat. 

Corbett in collusion with John Surma ambushed Joe Paterno and Graham Spanier. The "emergency" meeting of 11/9/11 allowed Surma who led the meeting to dispatch the two most credible voices capable of stemming the tsunami of blame leveled at PSU. Both Joe and Graham knew the Kelley Presentment was a bald-faced lie. But Corbett had to stop Joe and Graham from speaking out against that lie.

When AG Kelley put equal sized images of Tim Curley and Gary Schultz on stage beside the poster of Jerry Sandusky the presentment lie made the Penn State Scandal out of what is still rightly 'the Sandusky Second Mile' Scandal. 

Again we know why Surma set out to destroy Joe Paterno from The Surma Vendettas Part I and Part II. But why would Tom Corbett be so bent of the defamation and dismissal of Dr. Graham Spanier?

President Graham Spanier was the 33rd member of the Board on Nov 9, 2011, and the only board member who spoke out in defense of Penn State when he urged fellow members to stand behind Coach Paterno, Tim Curley, and Gary Schultz. Thus, Graham Spanier was the only member who stood publicly for what was right; and they fired him for it, in large part due to Tom Corbett's personal animosity for this political opponent.


Graham Spanier with Joe Paterno

Spanier was a most effective PSU President for 16 years. The FOR THE FUTURE campaign success reminds us his 16-year tenure as President just keeps on giving. We have to wonder why it had to stop.

Penn State sets $2 billion goal for campaign to help students

4/23/2010  University Park  President Graham Spanier announced that Penn State will aim to secure $2 billion by 2014 to ensure that the University can continue to offer an outstanding education to students from every economic background while benefiting the public through research and service.

Penn State raises more than $2 billion in For the Future campaign

Previous SMSS articles gave information indicating the battle between Corbett and Spanier over funding led to Corbett's ambush that sidelined Spanier. But here it is clear that Spanier was hugely successful in fundraising outside of government. So why did Tom Corbett view Graham Spanier as a political opponent? 

Climate Change was part of the race between Wolf and Corbett.  

Climate Change Stokes Billionaire's Campaign Against Corbett

Among politicians whom liberal billionaire Tom Steyer will aim to unseat in November is Gov. Tom Corbett, whose Democratic challenger will get a boost from the San Francisco environmental activist because of Pennsylvania's shale gas industry.

Steyer, 56, intends to spend up to $100 million through his NextGen Climate Action super-PAC to convince voters that climate change is the most important issue in the fall elections. In addition to Corbett, Steyer has set his sights on two other Republican governors and four U.S. Senate races.

If a Governor Wolf were to take on Corbett for his conflict of interest in the 11/9 meeting that led to Joe Paterno and Graham Spanier being sidelined when they alone could have cast serious doubt on the narrative about a PSU cover-up it would put Corbett in a very difficult position. At a minimum, it could have compelled the media to revisit the Freeh Report and understand the fictional moralizing for what it really is. 

One issue important to Wolf - Climate Change tied to the Sandusky Scandal like this opens the possibility of another look by the Governor's office. 

Climate Change and the Sandusky Scandal are connected because Penn State has some of the most prominent climate scientists in the country. 

SELF-DESCRIBED CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN DR. RICHARD ALLEY

Penn Stater's should be proud of Dr. Richard Alley, who received the Nobel Prize for work on climate change. Dr.Alley is an environmental scientist, PBS host, book author, polar ice expert, bicycle enthusiast, geologist, Nobel Prize winner, Johnny Cash impersonator, former oil company employee, and—according to The New York Times’ Andy Revkin—a “cross between Woody Allen and Carl Sagan.” (without Woody's baggage) 

Dr. Alley is an Evan Pugh Professor of Geosciences in PSU's College of Earth and Mineral Sciences. His research interests focus on glaciology, sea level change, and abrupt climate change, and he frequently discusses earth sciences on major media outlets, including NPR, BBC, and PBS. Alley is widely credited with showing that the earth has experienced abrupt climate change in the past—and likely will again, based on his meticulous study of ice cores from Greenland and West Antarctica.

Graham Spanier defended PSU climate scientists to legislators

who threatened to reduce funding for PSU if they were not removed.

 It is quite likely that Dr. Spanier’s defense of Penn State Climate Scientists played a part in what led to his dismissal.- I learned in Sept 2016. Then attorney general of Virginia, Ken Cuccinelli, who had sought to indict Dr. Mann  was a friend and political ally of former Attorney General then Governor Tom Corbett. Mann was under attack in the bogus "Climategate - hockey stick" flap making headline news at the time. 

A Spanier led Penn State hired Dr. Mann for the Department of Meteorology and PA Republicans led by Corbett and invested in coal and fracking wanted Spanier to fire climate scientists whose research was perceived as a threat to their interests. Dr. Spanier gave a solid defense and refused to fire the noted scientists and professors.
  
What effect did this have on Corbett's plan that removed Dr. Spanier as PSU President? Corbett's fight with Spanier over PSU funding was tied to the defense of PSU scientists by the Republican state legislators. Corbett thought Spanier was supporting climate change action and Corbett was the beneficiary of fossil fuel industry support along with The Second Mile support. The demand to dismiss PSU scientists from Republicans was motivated by the financial interests of their fossil fuel industry supporters.   

CLIMATE SCIENCE AND THE SANDUSKY SCANDAL

This American Thinker article is evidence of what the Spanier defense of the faculty at PSU did to incur the wrath of Corbett and fossil fuel funded legislators who wanted to de-fund PSU if Mann et. al were not fired.

CLIMATEGATE & the SANDUSKY SCANDALS -COMMON THREADS  In this American Thinker article the bogus "Climategate" attack compares favorably with Spanier's defense of Dr. Mann and the Freeh Fiction on Spanier's non-existent "cover-up" for Sandusky. Identical tactics are used.

Reading the text below leaves no doubt. The author claims Spanier chose PSU employees as "investigators" but you can read below how Dr. Pell initiated the RA-10 process

UNPRECEDENTED ATTACKS ON ACADEMIC RESEARCH AT PSU

The Climategate and Jerry Sandusky Scandals: A Common Thread

T.S. Weidler  7/31/12  Want to know more about PSU "thinker" T.S.Weidler?  Mr. Weidler appears to hide his identity from public view since any Google of T.S. Weidler turns up only a few T.S. Weidler links. It does appear he was a PSU student at one time. Links do turn up a radical agenda with Curmudgeonly 

America, it's time to meet your newest top-secret government employee: a professional cover-up artist with a radical agenda.
Graham Spanier is the former PSU president who was fired during the Jerry Sandusky investigation for failing to properly investigate Sandusky when the pedophilia allegations first surfaced.
Spanier's "investigation" of Jerry Sandusky was so thoroughly inept that it got him fired.  When it was completed, Spanier stated that he had "complete confidence in how they have handled the allegations against Sandusky," and he was fired very shortly thereafter.
The recent Freeh report indicates that the investigation was conducted for the purpose of finding nothing.  In other words,it was a cover-up.
It wasn't the only time Spanier rigged an inept investigation for the purpose of finding nothing.  In 2010, his investigators found that Penn State climatologist Michael Mann had done nothing wrong when he invented his "hockey stick trick," to "hide the decline" and lend false credibility to climate change theory.

The difference between the Mann investigation and the Jerry Sandusky investigation is that one covered up a sex offender and the other covered up a fraud.  

 The Climategate "Investigation"

The methodology, however, was equally bad. The "Climategate" investigation was conducted by five Penn State employees. The five internal investigators were given a list of four specific allegations of academic fraud, and they proceeded to dismiss the three most significant allegations outright, without investigating them at all. (this is an offensive lie against PSU)

These attacks on PSU should cause every Penn State alumnus great concern. These are attacks on the academic integrity of your Alma Mater. You should know beyond doubt that 16-year President Graham Spanier has complete integrity. PSU's inquiry into Dr. Mann appears to be unprecedented since this type of inquiry is typically initiated from within an academic institution - not from allegations by email and telephone from elements outside the university. Read the Final Investigation Report Involving Dr. Michael Mann: 

On Nov. 24, 2009, two days after receipt of numerous outside allegations, Dr. Pell initiated the process articulated in RA-1O by scheduling a meeting with the Dean of the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences (Dr. William Easterling), the Associate Dean for Graduate Education and Research of the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences (Dr. Alan Scaroni), the Director of the Office for Research Protections (Ms. Candice Yekel), and the Head of the Department of Meteorology (Dr. William Brune).

 At the time of initiation of the inquiry, no formal allegations accusing Dr. Mann of research misconduct had been submitted to any University official. Therefore, the emails and other communications were reviewed by Dr. Pell, and from these she synthesized four formal allegations. To be clear, these were not allegations that Dr. Pell put forth but rather her best effort to reduce to reviewable allegations the many different accusations that were received from parties outside of the University. The four synthesized allegations were as follows: 

          Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, 

1. any actions with the intent to suppress or falsify data? 
2. any actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4,as suggested by Phil Jones? 
3. any misuse of privileged or confidential information available to you in your capacity as an academic scholar? 
4. any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research, or other scholarly activities? 

Here we have an unprecedented attack on a Penn State professor and scientist undoubtedly initiated by the same deniers who spawned the CEI and National Review attacks coming from those associated with the fossil fuel industry funded groups. Like Corbett and Freeh going after Joe, Tim, Gary, and Graham with a few email snippets, the "Climategate" fiction based on a few out of context email snippets put PSU and Dr. Mann in this unprecedented position of a formal inquiry. This report on the Inquiry is 19 pages in length and goes into great detail concerning the methods and documentation used to arrive at this unanimous conclusion:

Conclusion of the Investigatory Committee 

as to whether research misconduct occurred: 

The Investigatory Committee, after careful review of all available evidence, determined that there is no substance to the allegations against Dr. Michael E. Mann, Professor, Department of Meteorology, The Pennsylvania State University. More specifically, the Investigatory Committee determined that Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research, or other scholarly activities. The decision of the Investigatory Committee was unanimous. 

As alumni of Penn State you can either accept or reject this unanimous conclusion. But if you reject it you are saying that the academic integrity of your alma mater is questionable, and you are saying the academic officers who did this inquiry are not to be trusted.  

My belief is that my University of Tennessee exhibits the highest possible academic integrity. I believe that is the same with Penn State. The panel of distinguished professors who reviewed the complaints from outside Penn State did not have to do this. There was obviously some significant outside pressure coming from political elements in PA who wanted to see Dr. Mann discredited. Dr. Mann was unanimously cleared and vindicated.

See Appendix B below for the record of 1073 email files that were used by the Deniers who invented the "Climategate" FRAUD. 

The 'conservative' National Review called Dr. Mann "the Sandusky of Climate Science"  and that makes the connection clear. Dr. Mann's defamation lawsuits continue as dismissal motions fail. After the PSU investigation cleared Dr. Mann of charges he misused grant money and falsified data, the fossil fuel funded deniers continued to harass PSU Climate Scientists.

Disinformers step up efforts to intimidate, harass,

and attack Mann, Alley, & PSU

The well funded Deniers go beyond slander to outright harassment -see CEI to sue RealClimate blogger over moderation policy and HERE  where NASA’s James Hansen, explains the strategy. - And this quote from Dr. Mann.

• “I am now inundated with broad FOIA requests for my correspondence, with substantial impact on my time and on others in my office. I believe these to be fishing expeditions, aimed at finding some statement(s), likely to be taken out of context, which they would attempt to use to discredit climate science. The input data for global temperature analyses are widely available, on our web site and elsewhere. If those input data could be made to yield a significantly different global temperature change, contrarians would certainly have done that — but they have not.” Dr. Mann

 Delingpole actually brags about the latest intimidation strategy: 

"I am glad to report that Michael Mann   is about to get a very nasty shock. On Monday, Mann will find that all 27 of his colleagues at the Earth System Science Center at PSU received a tempting email inviting them to blow the whistle on anyone fraudulently misusing federal grant funds for climate research. Under US law whistleblowers stand to make very large sums of money: based on a percentage of misued government funds - in this case perhaps as much as $50 million." - Mr. Delingpole

There was no “very nasty shock” to Dr. Mann or his colleagues, including PSU's Richard Alley, since they are all already more than aware of the inane tactics of the disinformers (see Alley explains “The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s Climate History”). And no, there aren’t any “whistleblowers” who will make a nickel off this intimidation strategy, but then that isn’t really the point of Delingpole's email.  Of course, the "whistleblower" letter with an invitation to monetary reward got no takers at Penn State.

The scope and effect of these unprecedented attacks on PSU Climate Scientists is astounding to me. Climate Deniers funded by Exxon and KOCH Industries care nothing about the depth and accuracy of the research. They have only 2 combined goals - cast doubt and cause inaction. 

SEE: MERCHANTS OF DOUBT for free on Youtube  - Dr. Mann is in this documentary reading the emails generated in the attacks on Penn State's integrity. The content of the email read by Dr. Mann is obscene and threatening. 

PENN STATE SCIENTISTS HATE MAIL?

DOUBT the science? Try BOB INGLIS  -and see him in action: Ultra Conservative Republican Congressman from South Carolina Bob Inglis -someone those who distrust the scientists can trust  OR  

THE SKEPTIC magazine publisher, Michael Shermer. One of 6 prominent conservative or libertarian deniers who studied the science in depth.  Shermer read all of the complete email chains used by perpetrators of the 'CLIMATEGATE" fraud. Prior to that experience he was a staunch libertarian climate change Denier himself.   

When Dr. Spanier stood up for the academic integrity represented by these scientists and Penn State cleared them of the bogus charges made up from email snippets taken out of context - the parallels to what Freeh did to Penn State, Spanier, and Paterno are clear. 

Mann sued the people responsible for his defamation and Spanier has gone on the attack suing Louis Freeh for defamation. 

Mann has lawsuits in progress against the Competitive Enterprise Institute - a fossil fuel funded political "think-tank", and The National Review. 

Professor Mann cleared by PSU of any violations in the bogus "Climategate" blowup. 

Another Win for Michael Mann June 13, 2016, Case drags on for years as the defendant defamers continue to stall with dismissal motions to no avail. 

Steyn’s request that the suit be dismissed was itself dismissed, as a similar request was in 2014. The judge’s patience with Steyn’s antics seems to be wearing thin, as the ruling notes that “Only one thing has changed since the court last considered this issue on April 11, 2014 – the date.”

A Win for the Climate Scientist Who Skeptics Compared to Jerry Sandusky

In 2012 writers for The National Review and fossil fuel funded think tank CEI accused Mann of fraud comparing him to Jerry Sandusky—Mann files a defamation suit. The defendants moved to have the case thrown out, but DC Superior Court Judge Weisberg rejected the motion, opening the way for a trial. Public figures like Mann & Spanier have to clear a high bar to prove defamation, Weisberg argued that Mann's complaint may pass the test, and brushed aside the defendants' claims that the fraud allegations were "pure opinion".

THIS IS THE KEY ELEMENT IN MANN'S CASE: Judge Weisberg Superior Court

Accusing a scientist of conducting fraudulent research, manipulating data to achieve a predetermined or political outcome, or purposefully distorting the scientific truth are factual allegations. They go to the heart of scientific integrity. They can be proven true or false. If false, they are defamatory. If made with actual malice, they are actionable. 

Steptoe & Johnson LLC, representing National Review writer Mark Steyn, withdrew as his counsel, and also plan to drop TNR as a client.

Parallels between the Freeh attack on PSU and attacks on PSU's climate scientists were drawn by The National Review and the fossil fuel industry-funded "think tank" Competitive Enterprise Institute when they called Mann "the Sandusky of Climate Science."  

These charlatans and deniers fraudulently produced false "evidence" just like Freeh, taking email fragments out of context from 5 of 480 scientists to claim temperature measurements were manipulated. 

Freeh used a few email fragments out of 3.5 million documents to accuse Joe Paterno, Graham Spanier, Tim Curley, and Gary Schultz of a cover up. 

The tactics are too similar to ignore.

FOLLOW THE MONEY

Claiming scientists 'cook the books' to keep research and grant money flowing?  
Here's a question to consider: Use your own Occam’s Razor. What is more likely?

1) A diverse multi-national group of Climate Scientists across the globe have conspired to manufacture a non-existent threat to the planet using data available to everyone in order to keep research grants that certainly do not make them wealthy. 

OR

2) Well paid "experts" with little or no scientific background, from think tanks funded by the wealthiest and most powerful industry in history, do the job their fossil fuel paymasters pay them handsomely to do. They use deceptive practices attacking the scientists and the science with false information to create doubt and thwart action so the fossil fuel industry can continue to make billions of dollars without interference.

257 Billion Profit in 2014 with obscene subsidies is sufficient reason for fraud. 

So far the evidence is clear in the case of Penn State's own Michael Mann. "Climategate" has been exposed as a fraud and defamation cases move forward. CEI and The National Review used the deceptive practice of taking out of context email snippets to create "Climategate" casting doubt on Dr. Mann's credibility and his research just at the time of the Copenhagen Conference. Read the entire timeline  

DR. MANN'S ORIGINAL HOCKEY STICK DATA WAS GROUND-BREAKING IN 1998

As time passes the "CLIMATEGATE" fraud becomes more and more evident. Since 1998 temperatures have continued to rise rapidly.  As evidence accumulates it becomes difficult to believe anyone still thinks the hockey stick is an inaccurate picture of the reality. 

At this very date, 16 consecutive hottest months on record should be clear and convincing but we still suffer from doubt spawned by fossil fuel industry paid deniers who pretend the data stopped in 1998. 

Setting the Record Straight on Misleading Claims about Michael Mann 

There are many elements in the deniers inquisition of selected climate scientists. Their tactics are confusion and misrepresentation. If there are 20 studies that offer the same conclusion the deniers pick the one with the least certainty and ignore the continued observations and measurements that further strengthen the model. It's obnoxious and misleading. The point is to confuse and mislead - rather than inform and enlighten. 

The Hockey Stick and Climate Wars by Michael Mann

The global warming denial machine's predatory "Serengeti strategy" of singling out individual scientists and scientific findings for attack has been applied relentlessly to several leading climate scientists, none more so than Mann and the iconic "hockey stick" graph from paleoclimate research published in 1998. That path-breaking work found that warming in the late 20th century was unprecedented over the last millennium. Since then, a growing and diverse body of painstaking paleoclimate research has produced multiple studies that confirm and strengthen that early finding.   

Below the fold you can learn how to make the calculations that prove AGW for yourself. The data is open source online available to all and the tools allow you to look at any data set you choose from over 6000 measurement sites. 

So who still wants to argue that "CLIMATEGATE" was real and that Dr. Mann's hockey stick is a misrepresentation of the reality - just like the "midieval warming perior was warmer than today" argument or "sea ice expanse increase around Antarctica proves we are not warming" - the deniers bunk is still bunk. 

The sharpest critic of Michael Mann relied on plagiarized material.   
CONTINUE BELOW


Subsequent observations and data continue to support Dr. Mann's temperature model just as our close review of the Freeh Fiction revealed the absurdity of the "Spanier cover up" accusations. Mann's and Spanier's defamation suits move forward but it's almost impossible to put those malicious attacks back in the foul sewers from whence they came.

Some attacks are clear examples of science - from one PSU Nobel Prize winner and a fellow prominent faculty member's work on Climate Science on one hand - facing religious views represented by Louis Freeh and Rick Santorum of Opus Dei on the other. Using religious belief as an attack on research science is a difficult action to combat with reason.  
See the previous post in this series. 

Santorum is an outspoken Denier who claims AGW is a HOAX. Biblical literalists and Creationists claim the scientifically accurate 4.5 billion-year-old Earth is a Hoax because the Bible shows the Earth to be around 6,000 years old. The ancient element of science vs religion is still a factor with many who deny the efficacy of climate science.

A University is the place for science and Doctor's Ally, Somerville, and Mann have brought credit to Penn State with their meticulous work in the field of climate science. There have now been 7 completed studies of the positions taken in peer-reviewed papers submitted to scientific journals. Six studies agree that 97 to 100% support AGW Anthropogenic or manmade Global Warming. The seventh reports 90%. 

We do not require a consensus of scientific papers to find the truth for ourselves. You too can view all the data and use the tools to draw your own conclusions.  (This link takes you to the tools and measurements used by scientists all across the world who compile the temperature record. You can access every measurement site in any combination you choose and compare different sets based on proximity, rural or urban, and date.) 

What should be done when communicating this information to those who understand the defamation faced by PSU, Paterno, and Graham Spanier - when part of the effort that birthed the defamation came from interests intent on discrediting PSU Climate Scientists? The point is not to feed any division based on any differences of opinion concerning AGW. This information indicates a connection we should not ignore but use your inquisitive open mind to revisit the information compiled by Dr. Alley and Dr. Mann. These distinguished professors are part of "We are Penn State" too.  

This information on Climate Science is part of the climate of change facing many backers of Tom Corbett at the time Dr. Spanier was dismissed. The funding by the fossil fuel industry to The Heartland, Competitive Enterprise, and CATO institutes is significant. These groups may appear to be independent but they are actually paid shills for Exxon and Koch Industries and the rest of the most wealthy and powerful industry on Earth. Dr. Spanier stood up to this power in support of research and science and is still in jeopardy because of it. 

THE INFORMATION BELOW EXPLAINS THE CLIMATE OF CHANGE THAT HAS FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY INTERESTS CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR PROFITS. 

THE EVIDENCE CAUSING CONCERN FOR FOSSIL FUEL INTERESTS

THE ACTUAL CONSENSUS AMONG CLIMATE SCIENTISTS ON AGW.

These studies conducted independently (Oreskes 2004, Oreskes 2007, Doran and Zimmerman (2009), Anderegg et al. (2010), Cook et. al., 2013) have shown that 97% of reporting climate scientist's papers that express an opinion agree that humans are the source of global warming. They agree anthropogenic greenhouse gases are the cause of global warming causing changes to the climate. The CO2 identification by isotope mass indicative of fossil fuels is known like the output of CO2 from burning fossil fuels.

The warming is identified as coming from inside the atmosphere because nights are warming faster than days and winter is warming faster than summer. These are the fingerprints that identify the sources beyond any doubt and shape the views that form the scientific consensus on climate change. 5 of the 7 studies done are linked in blue above. These consensus results are from specialists in fields that study the climate. 

The Deniers have desperately attempted to discredit and attack this consensus. As a result, Dr. John Cook of the University of Queensland - has published THE CONSENSUS ON CONSENSUS - A SYNTHESIS OF CONSENSUS ESTIMATES ON HUMAN CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING this well-awarded paper combines the overwhelming agreement by the most qualified Climate Scientists on the planet. 

These researchers study the ice, atmospheric chemistry and physics, and the geological record. They take measurements of the molecules in the ocean and atmosphere and the temperatures at stations spread all across the planet. These scientists are the men and women in the field drilling ice cores, recording the retreat of glaciers, bringing up water from the depths of the oceans, and risking life itself at the bases of calving glaciers. Who else is qualified to give us an expert opinion. 

When dedicated teams of climate scientists write up results of their research for scientific journals, the papers go through a rigorous peer review process. From the time data is collected until a study is completed 2 or 3 years pass. The peer review process takes 6 to 12 months. This process relies on measurements and data available to all under study by many in dozens of countries. The potential for fraud is almost non-existent. 

Like all good scientists, they maintain a skeptical nature. This is what substantial evidence now confirms as they continue to add observations and data to their skillful models. The measurements of CO2 and temperature are constantly updated from thousands of sources across the globe produced by scientists in almost every country. The measurements are open source available to anyone. 

Claiming climate researchers are perpetrating "a HOAX" to fool everyone is a lot like claiming Joe Paterno would cover up for a pedophile. It just makes no sense. The Freeh conspiracy theory of a cover-up at Penn State is quite like the theory that credentialed climate scientists and scientific groups around the globe have conspired to perpetrate the "hoax" of global warming by falsifying research data anyone can access.  

Without relying on the consensus we can find the truth for ourselves.
1) CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing (100's of monitoring sites confirm)
2) That CO2 is identified as from burning fossil fuels (isotope measurements)
3) The earth is warming (5000 plus sites on Earth plus satellites available to all)
4) The earth is warming more at night and in the winter (clearly not the sun) 
This is the clear and simple way to know the truth. 
Graph of the warming from over 5000 measurement sites and additional satellite data 

2015 and 2016 show dramatic increase

We are now in the 16th consecutive "hottest (month) on record". 
There is no wiggle room here - this evidence is complete and irrefutable. 

The attack on PSU researchers evidenced by PA Republican's demand that Dr. Spanier fire PSU scientists is very unusual. Many of them are supported by fossil fuel industry campaign donations. The academic integrity of PSU was challenged that day by special interests who demanded action favorable to their donors and Dr. Spanier was equal to that task. He defended the academic integrity of PSU and that contributed to the mess he is in today. 

What follows is not essential to the defense of Academic Integrity. It is for your edification and enlightenment on Climate Change. 

PSU SCIENTISTS DR. ALLEY & DR. MANN PROVIDE A DEFENSE OF CLIMATE SCIENCE. IT IS MY VIEW THAT PSU PEOPLE WHO DOUBT THE SCIENCE SHOULD HEAR THEM OUT. THAT IS NOT ESSENTIAL TO DEFEND THEIR RIGHT TO DO RESEARCH FREE FROM HARASSMENT. 

Many of the same current Deniers were employed by the tobacco industry, they were successful in slowing any legislation to limit damage from second-hand smoke. It took decades to overcome obstruction when 'freedom' was used as a tool of obstruction. Nobody wants to support limits to "freedom". People fear regulations that limit freedom. But what do we make of the 'freedom' to breath clean air and the freedom to have healthy oceans and rivers? And in this case what about the future of the planet and our grandchildren?  Do we depend on corporations to self-regulate and limit profits by paying to limit their pollution? 

Do we have decades to determine how to limit greenhouse gasses? Should any corporate entity or wealthy industry have the "freedom" to damage the environment we all depend on for life? Should they even have the power to purchase the votes of legislators who obstruct any action to limit the release of CO2 into an atmosphere shared by every human, plant, and animal? Should we deny what PSU scientists like Dr. Mann and Dr. Alley are telling us? 

What Dr. Mann and Dr. Alley of PSU tell us is absolutely unambiguous and clear: The CO2 being released by the burning of fossil fuels is warming the planet and that global warming is the cause of climate change. They agree that warming will result in sea level rise and additional dramatic changes that will undoubtedly create major population displacement. 

Athabasca the Cost

Now we know that the costs of kilowatts produced from renewables are less than that produced by fossil fuels. That does not even account for the variable costs. We know that resource based energy prices rise as resources are consumed but renewable energy source costs decline due to economies of scale. And what of the costs involving military intervention, leaking methane from fracking, and environmental destruction like the BP disaster.  
The only reason to continue with sources like the Athabasca tar sands is the profit of the fossil fuel source owners. 

NOTE: Although I would be glad to debate climate science this may not be the place for that debate. It is a part of this entry because of the connection with Corbett's actions against Penn State and Dr. Spanier and the unprincipled attack on the academic integrity of PSU. 

The aim here is to show how I think Penn State can gain more support from a broader spectrum of Pennsylvanians by exposing Corbett's conflicts of interest with Governor Wolf. Any of you who care to debate the science away from this site dedicated to restoring the honor of PSU, Dr. Spanier, and Joe Paterno are welcome to express and debate your opinion on the site where I share what I have learned about Climate Science and Global Warming. 

THE FOLLOWING LINKS AND STATEMENTS ADD TO UNDERSTANDING. 

Penn State has produced a number of notable Climate Scientists like Dr. Richard Somerville. Distinguished Professor Emeritus now Research Professor at the Scripps Oceanography Institute in San Diego. His 60-minute lecture in the links section below this article is another example of Penn State excellence. 

Climate Scientist's lawsuit could wipe out Conservative National Review Magazine 

Steyn quoted “paid anti-climate science operative Rand Simberg — an employee of the right-wing think tank the Competitive Enterprise Institute — who compared Mann to Penn State’s convicted child molester Jerry Sandusky. Mann, Simberg said, is “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data.”

Climate Scientist Compared to Jerry Sandusky, Files Libel Suit

Mann's paper, as a first attempt at this sort of reconstruction, attracted some criticism on scientific grounds. But it also attracted no end of non-scientific vitriol because it was mistakenly considered to be so central to the entire argument about climate change. Eventually, it even became the subject of Congressional hearings where climate science as a field was accused of being sloppy with statistics and too insular to notice. But the report that accused climate scientists of helping each other through peer review turned out to have been heavily plagiarized (and, ironically, was pushed into publication by a friendly editor). The National Academies of Science analyzed how the field had progressed since Mann's publication, and found that multiple studies, using improved methods, had now replicated the hockey stick result.

And finally the IRONY 

Climate Science Critic Sees Paper Retracted Due to Plagiarism

The so-called "hockey stick" plot of recent climate, in which recent temperatures appear as a sudden and anomalous rise after a thousand years of relative stability, has become a bit of an icon for climate change. Even though it's rather secondary to the concerns about rising greenhouse gas levels—CO2would be a concern even if we were limited to the 150 years of instrument records—the hockey stick attracted so much attention that, in 2006, it was the subject of Congressional hearings. Now, it appears that the sharpest critic of climate scientists at those hearings relied on plagiarized material to prepare his report.

JUNE 12, 2014  SIX THINGS MICHAEL MANN WANTS YOU TO KNOW ABOUT THE SCIENCE OF GLOBAL WARMING  shows us that Dr. Mann remains one of the most visible and oft quoted of climate scientists.

Michael Mann's Lawsuit vs National Review and Competitive Enterprise Institute 

PENN STATE Graduate Dr. Richard Somerville - Video 

APPENDIX A for background:

In order for the Corbett - Surma ambush to work Trustee's would be blindsided. The Trustees knew Corbett as former attorney general was privy to information they would not have. As Governor his assistance on business matters was a factor. A few well-placed conversations would silence any questions from a significant number of the Trustees 
Corbett needed PSU blamed for Sandusky. His state agencies and The Second Mile were the real responsible parties. Corbett already had the Louis Freeh plan in mind and he knew the Surma's antipathy for Joe made them easily manipulated tools for his plan.The cost of this plan to PSU was going to be horrendous. So this had to be done in that "emergency" meeting without debate before Trustees could really think about the cost of their complicity. 
The Trustee's decision to fire Joe and Graham sealed the fate of PSU. It signified that the BOT had decided Joe, Tim, and Gary were guilty making PSU responsible, and it destroyed the only chance PSU had to fight the bogus presentment lie. Once Freeh was turned loose to "validate" the charges working with Kelley it was already over.  

APPENDIX B - the pertinent information in the 19 page RA-1O Final Investigation Report Involving Dr. Michael E, Mann concerning the volume of documents reviewed and studied.
These were the same emails used to construct the "CLIMATEGATE" fraud taking snippets out of context.  

From Nov 30 to Dec 14, 2009, staff in the Office for Research Protections culled through the 1073 files that contained emails or email strings that were purloined from a server at the University of East Anglia. A subset of the files containing emails or email strings was reviewed. This subset of files included emails that were sent by Dr. Mann, were sent to Dr. Mann, were copied to Dr. Mann, or discussed Dr. Mann (but were neither addressed nor copied to him).
 In summary, the following were found:
 

• 206 files that contained emails or email strings that contained message text from Dr. Mann somewhere in the chain;

• 91 files that contained emails or emails strings that were received by Dr. Mann, but in which he did not participate; and

• 79 files that contained emails or email strings that dealt with Dr. Mann, his work or publications but that he neither authored nor was listed as copied.

From among these 376 files, the Inquiry Committee focused on 47 files that contained emails or email strings that were deemed relevant. On Dec 17, 2009, the Inquiry Committee (Pell, Scaroni, Yekel), Dr. Brune and Dr. Foley met to review the emails, the RA-1O inquiry process, and their respective activities. It was agreed that these individuals would meet again in early January and that they would use the time until that meeting to review the relevant information, including the above-mentioned e-mails, journal articles, OP-ED columns, newspaper and magazine articles, the National Academy of Sciences report entitled "Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years," ISBN: 0-309-66144-7 and various blogs on the internet.