Almost 100 students, residents and community leaders were in attendance, and the group says this was, by far, the biggest demonstration of conservative activism on campus this year.

Go by their website and take a look at their photos and information, and give them some encouraging words. They are holding their next meeting on February 25, so if you are in the area you should go and show your support.

The internal enquiry has found that Mann did not “participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data”. For the full report, click here (pdf).

Nor did he “delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data” relating to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2007 report. One email that has received much media attention was sent to Mann by Phil Jones, then director of the UEA’s Climatic Research Centre, on 29 May 2008. It asked Mann to delete some emails regarding the 2007 IPCC report.

In the months since the email leak, Mann has repeatedly said that he did not heed to Jones’ request. Penn State’s enquiry confirmed this.

The report is not clear about whether Mann’s behaviour has harmed the public trust in science. It cites Penn State’s official ethical standards, which says faculty have an obligation to maintain high ethical standards in order to foster public trust in science. It then goes on to discuss the fallout from the email leak which, it says, may have polarised the public into two camps: one that believes the leak undermines climate science and another that does not.

“After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee could not make a definitive finding whether there exists any evidence to substantiate that Dr. Mann did engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that deviated from accepted practices within the academic community,” reads the report. This final point will now be at the centre of a further investigation.

“This is very much the vindication I expected since I am confident I have done nothing wrong,” Mann told New Scientist. “I fully support the additional inquiry which may be the best way to remove any lingering doubts.”

Who would have thunk it? Five tenured professors find fellow tenured professor not guilty.

Inquiry into climate scientist moves to next phase
Wednesday, February 3, 2010

University Park, Pa. — An internal inquiry by Penn State into the research and scholarly activities of a well-known climate scientist will move into the investigatory stage, which is the next step in the University’s process for reviewing research conduct.

A University committee has concluded its inquiry into allegations of research impropriety that were leveled in November against Professor Michael Mann, after information contained in a collection of stolen e-mails was revealed. More than a thousand e-mails are reported to have been “hacked” from computer servers at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in England, one of the main repositories of information about climate change.

During the inquiry, all relevant e-mails pertaining to Mann or his work were reviewed, as well as related journal articles, reports and additional information. The committee followed a well-established University policy during the inquiry (http://guru.psu.edu/policies/ra10.html).

In looking at four possible allegations of research misconduct, the committee determined that further investigation is warranted for one of those allegations. The recommended investigation will focus on determining if Mann “engaged 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.” A full report (http://www.research.psu.edu/orp) concerning the allegations and the findings of the inquiry committee has been submitted.

In the investigatory phase, as in the inquiry phase, the committee will not address the science of global climate change, a matter more appropriately left to the profession. The committee is charged with looking at the ethical behavior of the scientist and determining whether he violated professional standards in the course of his work.

The investigatory committee will consist of five tenured full professor faculty members who will assess the evidence in the case and make a determination on Mann’s conduct.

The only part that worries us is this:

The investigatory committee will consist of five tenured full professor faculty members who will assess the evidence in the case and make a determination on Mann’s conduct.

But then again, we hear Mann is extremely disliked at Penn State, so you never know.

Source: Penn State Live

Hey deniers: Don't you know who were are!

Yesterday we reported that Penn State University claimed they are exempt from the Freedom Of Information Act under Pennsylvania’s ‘Right To Know Law.’ U.S. constitutional law advisers have reliably informed climategate.com that Penn State’s latest scam to hide wrongdoing by their climatologist, Michael Mann, is contrary to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

This means that any federal law—including Freedom of Information laws – trumps any conflicting state law.

Under U..S. constitutional law it turns out that a legal technicality known as the ‘Preemption Doctrine’ forbids any shabby attempt by institutions at state level from undermining the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) laws. According to the Supremacy Clause, anyone filing a federal FOIA request at the university will have the full weight of the federal government behind them in rooting for evidence in cracking the great climate con nut.

It turns out that the state of Pennsylvania is no stranger to getting its hand slapped by the feds for trying to circumvent the rights of citizens. Federal ‘occupation of the field’ stamped itself on Pennsylvanians in the case of Pennsylvania v Nelson (1956),

The Supremacy Clause states that the:

Constitution and the laws of the United States…shall be the supreme law of the land…anything in the constitutions or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

We hope that Penn State University will now stop its shenanigans in trying to ‘hide the decline’ of the career and credibility of mendacious Michael Mann and let the world get on with putting climate criminals behind bars.

We have recently learned of the bigger challenges ahead for former railway engineer, economist and climate expert, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri. The ‘world’s most important climatologist’ is fast gaining recognition as an erotic novelist, proving that he truly is a Renaissance man of worldwide fame. Pachauri has also climbed to the summit as a shrewd energy investor and speculative businessman. He now shows us once again he has the Midas touch as a dab hand peddler of pornography and science fiction. The UN will be sorry to lose his invaluable services.

Internationally, other vacancies may soon transpire within government-funded climatic research institutes. After the success in promoting the science of man-made global warming, top climatologists — such as Penn State University’s Michael Mann and University of East Anglia’s (UEA) Phil Jones –- who recently received a right royal endorsement from none other than Prince Charles for his outstanding contribution to law breaking on epic proportions, are facing new challenges elsewhere.

The IPCC will be encouraging national governments to fill these vacancies immediately with men and women of analogous rectitude and talent. This year is sure to be a wondrous opportunity for ambitious, dedicated and well-qualified climatologists disposed towards close working relations with non-governmental environmental lobby groups such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). Select candidates must possess the minimum requisite academic qualifications, but above all else, they’ll need the right references.

Eager aspirants must have experience in both fictional and non-fictional science with resourcefulness in seamlessly coalescing the two in peer-reviewed publications. Fame and fortune is assured to the most persuasive practitioners of this highly lucrative dark art.

As we have seen in recent times, great innovators in science will have their envious detractors jealously hurling their defamatory slurs. You may know them as that uncouth rabble of vocal planetary misfits, those ungodly sceptics. Such non-believers who must never be allowed to besmirch the great and the good of the IPCC, no sir, no way, so sayeth Mr. US President and Mr. UK Prime Minister.

Anyway, Mammon has its own exquisite way of punishing such sacrilege. Thousands of besmirched and slandered climatologists will all stand in line at court houses and weigh down judges with a plethora of libel suits to cleanse the mouths and empty the pockets of those dastardly deniers. The civil courts are creaking under the rush now, as we speak, in climate claims. Or is that all just another variant of immoral fiction from the petulant pen of Pachauri?

But let’s feel no great sadness for the man once lauded as ‘the world’s most senior climatologist.’ Dr. Pachauri has allegedly already had his private accounts filled by big energy sponsors. Thus goes the old saying: he who has his hands last on the money is usually laughing the loudest.

‘Qualified’ climatologist? No such thing.

But in my mockery, there is a sober point that needs to be made about that discredited brand of IPCC voodoo climatology. Those 1,000+ leaked Climategate emails tell us all we need to know about the integrity and methodologies so beloved of taxpayer funded climate experts.

In recent weeks it’s been left more and more to the politicians, those lovers of cap-and-trade taxation policies to do the eco-fascist dirty work. The Obama’s and Brown’s of this world are such a ham-fisted bunch, too. Instead of focusing on factual debate, they digress off into appealing to this or that ‘authority.’ When us sceptics point them to the latest data that debunks their floundering theory, they’ll retort with statements like, “you’re not qualified to dispute the science, you’re not even a climatologist!”

So climatologists, pray tell, what qualifications do you need other than having your friends pay to publish your work and address you as such? In the interests of honest inquiry let us now examine what it takes to matriculate as an academically qualified climate scientist.

I shall conduct my analysis with true objectivity –- no wiki-peeing here! I’ll Google my facts so there will be no question that I haven’t used the most pro-green Internet search engine for climate alarmist orthodoxy.

My task: to prove that there is no such man or woman as a science graduate in the field of climatology. We can all do this test ourselves. Please try it when you’re alone and bored for five minutes waiting for next ‘gate’ to break.

Go searching for Bachelor of Science courses in climatology and guess what you find? Nothing!

But don’t be outdone –- do what I did — lower your sights and just search for ‘climate courses.’ In Britain I found very meager offerings. I clicked on one link that was Bangor University. Google tells me that Bangor can offer a ‘Part time evening course’ in climatology that has a duration of ’10 weeks.’ That would do very nicely, I thought. I could be signed up, in and out in flash and waving my proof of a climatic qualification quicker than Pachauri can be kicked out and moved on from the chair of the IPCC.

Here is the route, my friends, to science funding heaven. All I now need is a couple of personal character references from a newspaper environmental correspondent or better still, a Greenpeace or WWF activist. After that I’m ready to be fast-tracked to the loot at the next available government funded climatic research post.

But seriously, surely somewhere universities will be offering some bona fide undergraduate courses in the climate science field? I then had my first brainwave: I’ll telephone the Admissions Office of the University of East Anglia, Norwich, England, home of currently suspended Climategate bad boy, Phil Jones, and ask them.

Bingo! I was on to something. I tried not to laugh as the refined tones of a charming lady proudly boasted that the University of East Anglia was the most prestigious university for Environmental Sciences in Britain –- a position it has held for the last 30 years. Still the best of British –- boy, there’s hubris for you!

And she gave me my scoop. Climate science at degree level will be taught in England for the first time later this year! Whoopee! Heavens be praised! I think I was supposed to be impressed. At last the planet has the prospect of one day seeing a handful of graduates who can genuinely call themselves fully qualified climatologists. She eagerly took my name and address and promised me she would ‘pop a prospectus in the post today.’

So all you bright young 18 year-olds, here’s your chance. Britain’s ‘most prestigious’ climate research establishment is now recruiting for the first time ever, so come buy your Bachelor Degree in Climate Science from the Britain’s finest sellers of snake oil.

I felt I was on a roll and now broadened my search internationally. I took a punt at that other disgraced Climategate climatologist, Michael Mann’s university: Penn State, to see what that fine institution could offer a budding climatologist –- nothing. Not even the prospect of a bachelor of science in climatology on the horizon. Plenty of ‘Earth Science’ stuff there and courses for ‘educators’ seeking to add to their ‘knowledge’ on climate issues –- another ‘save the polar bears — hug some trees’ bucket of excrement to plop into the impressionable minds of little kids.

I wondered if perhaps the paucity of climate courses at Penn State had more than a little to do with the fact Michael Mann is not too popular on campus. Not that it is for me to be the first to relate that the mad Mann is known there as “the foolish consistency — the hobgoblin of little minds,” after Ralph Waldo Emerson.

But then those who know the Mann, know he is a counter of tree rings, unable to differentiate between ocean sediments and coral terrestrial deposits. Institutions needing to employ his services can hardly be expected to train enquiring minds in the ways of stochastic calculus, the Wiener process or how to model Brownian motion climate models that have a better rate of climate prediction than me flipping a coin?

But to learn from Mann is at least to know self doubt — that secret angst not revealed by his public personna. The little tree-hugging hobbit needed a hug himself when that nasty British climatologist, Keith Briffa of the UEA stated in those infamous leaked emails that quite frankly our little Mann was wrong about recent warming. Cruel ogre, Briffa sent the head-scratching, diminutive chap into a spin when he announced:

“I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago. “

This being such a remarkable statement that seriously undermined the whole ruse that the goblin and his gang must tell all the boys and girls that our modern warm temperatures were “unprecedented.”

Little Mikey responded to this catastrophic development thus:

“I walked into this hornet’s nest this morning! Keith and Phil Jones have both raised some very good points. And I should point out that Chris Folland, through no fault of his own, but probably through me not conveying my thoughts very clearly to the others, definitely overstates any singular confidence I have in my own (Mann and coworkers’) results.“

In other words, Mann has no confidence in his own results! But did he come clean on this revelation? Not on your life! Tut, tut, if we’re not careful here, the whole field of climatology, not just that damned global warming theory, risk being consigned permanently to the dustbin marked ‘incredulous’ along with alchemy and astrology.

I really think our little mischief maker ought to sign up at UEA next Fall –- he might learn something!

Don't worry warmers, the fix is in.

Colleen Boyle at Penn State’s Daily Collegian is still on the job, tracking the investigation of Professor Michael Mann. She reports today that the two-month long inquiry has concluded and will release their findings later this week. The inquiry’s findings will determine if they will continue to investigate Mann further.

If you’re new to climategate, Penn State’s inquiry began after hundreds of illegally obtained e-mails were leaked from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England, where critics allege that Penn State’s Michael Mann, East Anglia’s Phil Jones, and others conspired to distort climate change evidence in favor of supporting global warming.

But conservative groups, who know all too well how liberal professors are let off, are already mobilizing to respond to the university’s findings:

Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) — a Penn State student group working to “advance the principles of individual and economic freedom, limited government and traditional values” — has taken an interest in the Mann inquiry.

On Feb. 12, YAF will host a demonstration in front of the HUB to protest what the group feels is a violation of academic integrity, YAF member Samuel Settle said. The 9-12 Project of Central PA, a conservative group, will join the demonstration.

Settle (sophomore-political science and history) said the university’s handling of the inquiry unsettles him.

“What the university has done is they’ve taken three Penn State employees and assigned them to deciding whether or not Mann violated university policy,” he said. “That’s an awful lot of power in the hands of three with no external oversight.”

Anyone care to wager on the outcome?

Source: Daily Collegian

A spokesman from the foundation said the inquiry Penn State has been conducting into Mann’s ethics is inappropriate, considering the university’s “glaring conflict of interest.”

“If the school conducts the investigation, there is likely to be a white-wash given that a negative finding would harm the school’s reputation,” said Joe Sterns, communications director for the Commonwealth Foundation.

As of press time, no Pennsylvania lawmakers had responded to the foundation’s policy letter.

But Penn State spokeswoman Lisa Powers expressed her confidence in Penn State’s ability to carry out a fair inquiry.

“From what I have heard and read, [the Commonwealth Foundation] already believes Professor Mann is guilty and that Penn State is unable to conduct a fair and impartial inquiry,” she said. “We take issue with that, and I encourage the Commonwealth Foundation to wait until Penn State’s review of the case is concluded before they condemn it.”

Penn State began the inquiry Nov. 29 and will conclude on Jan. 29.

From the introduction of the Comonwealth Foundation report:

The release of embarrassingly candid emails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia has intensified, if not vindicated, suspicions that scientific misconduct has played a significant role in fueling alarmism over supposed catastrophic manmade global warming.

Just days after news broke about what has been dubbed “Climategate,” Penn State University (PSU) announced that it would investigate the conduct of Michael Mann, a professor in PSU’s Department of Meteorology and a prominent figure in the Climategate emails.

While PSU is to be commended for recognizing that Climategate is a serious matter and that an investigation into Michael Mann’s conduct is warranted, the investigation constitutes a conflict of interest for the university. Mann’s climate work brings enough visibility, prestige, and revenue to PSU to legitimately call into question the university’s ability to do a thorough and unbiased investigation.

To avoid this glaring conflict of interest and ensure that the investigation of Mann is credible, the Pennsylvania General Assembly should commission an external and independent investigation into Mann’s potential scientific misconduct.

January 30 should be an interesting day at Peen State. But we don’t expect much to come from an in-house investigation.

If you’ve got anything on Mann, and have been hesitant to contact the ex-CIA investigator Kent Clizbe, think about emailing Colleen Boyle at The Daily Collegian.

Michael Mann thanks us for paying for his tree ring studies.

As we reported last week the discredited Penn. State University climatologist Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann is still milking the government cash cow with impunity. The timing of Mann’s last half million-dollar windfall couldn’t have been better. Cynics will say his newest largess is big government’s nod of approval for feeding them the spin that bolsters their cap and trade tax hike. Clearly, the Obama Administration is giving this controversial climatologist a nod and a wink while also raising the fickle middle finger of fate to Mann’s critics. The Democrats are now hoping that few insiders will pay much heed to Senator Piccola’s Letter on the upcoming disciplinary hearing of Penn’s pernicious professor

As the rest of the scientific community recoils in dismay at the shenanigans of those climatologists exposed in the Climategate scandal, it’s clearly now down to the politicians to keep alive the burning embers of the man made global warming theory. As Mann’s recent admissions prove, he’s feeling very much on his own: “I haven’t had all that many other scientists helping in that effort.”

In the wake of Obama’s pat on the back to corruption comes the backlash in the blogosphere. Climate skeptics are seething at the U.S. administration’s show of support to the discredited tree-ring counter.

Our little Mann is known for his brash and arrogance among colleagues, so ex-CIA agent Kent Clizbe and I are confident his co-workers will turn on him once prompted to tell the truth at any public inquiry.

When under scrutiny in 2006 our Mann revealed the contempt he feels for investigators when he let slip that he didn’t even consider the National Academy of Science to be scary enough to worry about: “it’s not the US Senate,” he said.

Mendacious Mann will continue to sit tight unless the panel of Penn State University’s internal investigation do their part to help taxpayers reclaim those bags of ill-gotten gain. So with Mikey wiling away his time pondering his fate, I thought it the opportune moment to draw our readers’ attention to some pertinent leaked Climategate emails that provide a true insight into the thought processes of a successful snake oil salesman. (Hat tip to Dr. John Costello)

On February 13, 2006 when the National Research Council of the National Academies of the United States invited British climatologist Keith Briffa to appear before its enquiry in Washington, D.C., Briffa wrote Mike Mann. In CRU leaked email 1139835663 we see how Mann leans on Briffa to attend:

Briffa: “IN STRICT CONFIDENCE I am sending this for your opinion. To be frank, I am inclined to decline. What do think? Presumably you and others are already in the frame?”

Mann remains keen for his co-conspirators to be in the frame. He responds:

Mann: “ I think you really should do this if you possibly can. The panel is entirely legitimate, and the report was requested by Sherwood Boehlert, who as you probably know has been very supportive of us in the whole Barton affair. … Especially, with the new Science article by you and Tim I think its really important that one of you attend, if at all possible.”

If one is wondering about Mann’s definition of “legitimate,” he quickly erases any doubt:

Mann: “The panel is solid. Gerry North should do a good job in chairing this, and the other members are all solid. Christy is the token skeptic, but there are many others to keep him in check: So I would encourage you to strongly reconsider!”

So, it seems Mann is implying that “solid” means “alarmist friendly” and so there is little risk for Briffa in appearing before it. However, Briffa’s lack of confidence is manifest:

Briffa: “Thanks for this, but after a lot of soul-searching this weekend, I have decided to decline the invitation.”

Keith Briffa won’t come to the States to testify for Mann because Briffa fears Mann’s tree-ring “trick” to erase past warming would be exposed. If this happens then the comparatively moderate warming of the late 20th century will be interpreted as yet another natural episode of natural climatic variation. Here’s Briffa’s take on it:

Briffa: “I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago.“

This is a remarkable admission that undermines the entire argument propounded publicly by Briffa, Mann and their colleagues that global warming was “unprecedented.”

Good ol’ Mike responds to this catastrophic development:

“I walked into this hornet’s nest this morning! Keith and Phil Jones have both raised some very good points. And I should point out that Chris Folland, through no fault of his own, but probably through me not conveying my thoughts very clearly to the others, definitely overstates any singular confidence I have in my own [Mann and co-workers’] results.”

In other words, Mann, too, privately admits he has no confidence in his own conclusions! While no one knows Mann’s weasel propensities to fiddle the numbers better than respected Canadian climate analyst and statistician, Steve McIntyre.

McIntyre reviewed Mann’s arguments to justify withholding his source code from the House Committee back in 2005. McIntyre exposes Mann for taking a remarkably legalistic point of view about who owned his computer source code. This is the data trickery Mann used for spinning the tree ring poxy (er, proxy) to “magic” away the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). According to Mann, the source code couldn’t possibly belong to those who funded his research, oh no. Those “thieves” from the Universities of Virginia or Massachusetts weren’t going to pry it from his grubby little fingers by claiming it was theirs!

As Steve McIntyre has rightly pointed out, Mann has twisted the truth about the U.S. federal government’s policy on archiving as much, if not more, than he’s knotted the crap out of tree rings. If Mann’s legalistic position is correct under present National Science Foundation (NSF) policy, then McIntyre is right to insist that its high time for a review of NSF policies and procedures. Because, above all else, genuine scientists should be open and frank about all their calculations that support their theories. But Mann stated the following on this issue:

“My computer program is a private piece of intellectual property….whether I make my computer programs publicly available or not is a decision that is mine alone to make….”

That’s the way to screw the Scientific Method, Mike. It’s not like you haven’t been paid enough already from taxpayers! But really, no one is after stealing his tree-ring counting technique–we know it’s bogus anyway. It’s the fact he hides it that proves his evil intent–real scientists just don’t do that, you see. But as anyone can figure out, Mike’s not in it for the science. You see, McIntyre and that other fine analyst, Ross McKitrick (M&M) exposed his shenanigans when Mann purported to use the standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA. Our famed wood rings counter had inserted (accidentally or intentionally?) a fundamental mathematical flaw into the computer program to produce that now infamous hockey stick graph so promoted by Al Gore, the UN and green tax-hungry politicians. M&M created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called Monte Carlo analysis, after the famous casino. MIT’s Technology Review explains the whole fiasco in detail here.

In his original publications of the hockey stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records. But this wasn’t so. Every time M&M fed random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape graph! Whatever climate numbers you feed into Mike’s computer you’ll always get dramatic warming for the end of the last century. But, Mann was busted and there were grounds to do a full inventory of his methodologies.

So what does the Penn State professor have to say in answer to his findings?

“…the National Science Foundation confirmed its view that my computer codes are my private property…“

Okay, We hear you. Michael Mann is now spending less of his career as a climatologist and more as self-taught lawyer. So there you have it climate skeptics. But does he stop droning on about his legal rights? Nope – not our Mikey!

“…It is a bedrock principle of American law that the government may not take private property “without [a] public use,” and “without just compensation.”

Stop! Enough, already! Someone put him back in the cupboard with the other lumps of deadwood, please!

Okay, ownership aside, can Mann still prove he is a hard working scientist of principle, and finally let there be open and transparent independent analysis of his number crunching?

“I have made available all of the research data that I am required to under United States policy as set by the National Science Foundation…. I maintain the right to decline to release any computer codes, which are my intellectual property…”

Yes,yes, that’s it, Mike, keep appealing to that “Higher Authority.” Forgive me, Michael, if I’m being too harsh. But millions of people worldwide, as well as a growing number of your peers, want you to fess up, let the world see whether you screwed up accidentally or deliberately in creating the dodgy hockey stick graph. The political wind are changing and if you don’t bend with them, you’ll have no alternative than to plead the Fifth Amendment, right?

America’s mid-term elections will be the turning point when the American people say ‘no’ to President Obama’s unpopular and pointless climate policies premised on the junk science of apparent money-grabbing connivers, and Michael Mann and the others academics on the public global warming dole will see their day of reckoning.

That’s the take from today’s article at Onward State regarding the Penn State University investigation of Michael Mann. And we have to agree.

As regular readers know, last week an ex-CIA agent went after Mann by telling his associates they could receive millions of dollars in Whistleblower rewards if they have anything on him. While it’s reported he’s not exactly a likable fellow around campus, still, the university must protect their own.

As Onward State tells it:

What makes the investigation more interesting is that, according to University Policy the outcome of the committee’s deliberations may be kept confidential. Like many Universities around the country, probes into faculty misconduct are protected, “to the maximum extent possible.” Additionally, many people are outraged that no one from outside Penn State is being asked to review the situation. Since this is the case, is it conceivable that Penn State is trying to save face to ensure that research dollars keep rolling in?

And who is on the committee?

The committee, which will be investigating the situation for 120 days, includes Henry Foley (Vice President for Research), William Brune (Mann’s boss in the Meteorology Department) and Candice Yekel (Director of the Office of Research Protections). If found guilty, Mann will have 14 days to respond.

Oh, and there are five other “tenured professors” that will be called upon. Nice. Hardball!

I wonder if any of these eight are either a) liberals and b) believe in man made global warming… Just sayin’.

Come on, who's not going to trust this face?

Collegian staff writer Colleen Boyle this week wrote the fair and balanced story “Agent looking for ‘Climategate’ insiders.”

What does Mann have to say about former CIA agent Kent Clizbe sending emails to 27 Penn State faculty members last week? His quote from the article:

Mann said he had no comment on Clizbe’s actions, saying “I don’t want to dignify it with a response.”

Aha, more openness from the climate change regime.

And we see that fellow Professor Alley has got Mann’s back:

Penn State Professor Richard Alley, who assisted the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and shared the 2007 Nobel Prize with Al Gore, doesn’t feel Clizbe’s e-mails will have an effect on Penn State’s scientific community — such ethical standards are already in place, he said. Alley did not comment on whether he received an e-mail from Clizbe.

“I strongly endorse high ethical standards and am very favorably impressed by the high ethical standards I see in action across our scientific community, specifically including colleagues at Penn State,” he said.

We should all heed Alley’s words–after all, he’s obviously must be as honest and bright as his co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, Al Gore.