Husk mig
▼ Indhold

Oprejsning til Michael Mann


Oprejsning til Michael Mann07-02-2010 09:17
Christoffer Bugge Harder
★★★★☆
(1573)
Efter indbruddet i CRU blev der igangsat en uafhængig undersøgelse af Michael Mann på hans universitet i Pennsylvania. Han blev undersøgt for fire anklager

1. Undertrykkelse samt forfalskning af data.

2. Sletning af e-post relateret til IPCCs AR4-rapport, som var belagt med forespørgsler om aktindsigt.

3. Misbrug af fortrolig information.

4. Anden afvigelse fra god videnskabelig skik.

Denne undersøgelse er nu tilendebragt. Resultatet er, at Mann er blevet pure frifundet på alle tre punkter, som kommissionen fandt, at den kunne tage stilling til:

RA-10 Inquiry Report: Concerning the Allegations of Research Misconduct
Against Dr. Michael E. Mann

Allegation 1: Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with
the intent to suppress or falsify data?

Finding 1. After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the
inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or
has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent
to suppress or to falsify data. While a perception has been created in the weeks after the
CRU emails were made public that Dr. Mann has engaged in the suppression or
falsification of data, there is no credible evidence that he ever did so, and certainly not
while at Penn State. In fact to the contrary, in instances that have been focused upon by
some as indicating falsification of data, for example in the use of a "trick" to manipulate
the data, this is explained as a discussion among Dr. Jones and others including Dr. Mann
about how best to put together a graph for a World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
report. They were not falsifying data; they were trying to construct an understandable
graph for those who were not experts in the field. 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.

Decision 1. As there is no substance to this allegation, there is no basis for further
examination of this allegation in the context of an investigation in the second phase of
RA-10.

Allegation 2: Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with
the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related
to AR4, as suggested by Phil Jones?

Finding 2. After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the
inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had
ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with intent to delete,
conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data related to AR4, as suggested
by Dr. Phil Jones. Dr. Mann has stated that he did not delete emails in response to Dr.
Jones' request. Further, Dr. Mann produced upon request a full archive of his emails in
and around the time of the preparation of AR4. The archive contained e-mails related to
AR4.

Decision 2. As there is no substance to this allegation, there is no basis for further
examination of this allegation in the context of an investigation in the second phase of
RA-10.

Allegation 3: Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any misuse of
privileged or confidential information available to you in your capacity as an academic
scholar?

Finding 3. After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the
inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had
ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any misuse of privileged or
confidential information available to him in his capacity as an academic scholar. In media
reports and blogs about Dr. Mann and other paleoclimatologists, those who are named in
the CRU email files are purported to have been engaged in conspiratorial discussions
indicative of a misuse of privileged or confidential information. Although it is not clear
where the exact accusation lies in this with respect to Dr. Mann, it is inferred that the
emails prove the case. Those who have formed this view feel that, in their capacity as
reviewers, Dr. Mann and his colleagues had early access to manuscripts from other
authors with whom they disagreed, and that they could somehow act on those to reject
them for publication. Actually, when one does due diligence on this matter, and asks
about what papers were involved, one finds that enormous confusion has been caused by
interpretations of the emails and their content. In some cases, the discussion and related
debate centered on papers that were about to emerge which members of the purported
conspiracy had written, but which were simply under embargo. In other cases, the
discussion and related debate centered on papers that have emerged in otherwise notable
scientific journals, which they deemed to have been published with a lower standard of
scholarly and scientific scrutiny. The committee found no research misconduct in this.
Science often involves different groups who have very different points of view, arguing
for the intellectual dominance of their viewpoint, so that that viewpoint becomes the
canonical one. We point to Kuhn2 as an authority on how science is done, before it is
accepted as "settled."

Decision 3. As there is no substance to this allegation, there is no basis for further
examination of this allegation in the context of an investigation in the second phase of
RA-10.


På det fjerde punkt kunne panelet ikke tage stilling, eftersom det vedrørte den videnskabelige substans i sager, som dets medlemmer ikke havde kompetencer indenfor.


Allegation 4. Did you engage in, or 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?

Finding 4. 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 for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities. It is the case
that there has been a public outcry from some quarters that Dr. Mann and his colleagues
did deviate from what some observers claim to be standard academic practice. All
disciplines and scientific fields work within broad bounds of "accepted scientific"
practice that apply to all researchers. However, within different disciplines of science
there are additional elements of accepted practice that may be specific to those disciplines
and therefore are different from those of other disciplines and fields. For example,
accepted practices in a field of pure mathematics, such as number theory, may differ
markedly from those in a field such as socio-biology. This is axiomatic. That said, the
committee could not make a definitive finding on this allegation for reasons that follow.


Der er derfor nedsat et panel til at kigge på denne anklage:

An investigatory committee of faculty members with impeccable credentials will consider this
matter and present its findings and recommendations to Dr. Henry C. Foley within 120 days of
being charged. The committee will consist of the following five faculty members:

1. Dr. Mary Jane Irwin, Evan Pugh Professor, Department of Computer Science and
Electrical Engineering;
2. Dr. Alan Walker, Evan Pugh Professor, Department of Anthropology and
Department of Biology;
3. Dr. A. Welford Castleman, Evan Pugh Professor, Department of Chemistry and
Department of Physic;
4. Dr. Nina G. Jablonski, Head, Department of Anthropology; and
5. Dr. Sarah M. Assmann, Waller Professor, Department of Biology.


Summa summarum: Ikke skyldig i nogen af de alvorlige anklager, der blev rejst efter CRU-indbruddet. Det skal blive interessant at se, hvad panelet finder frem til med den sidste anklage, men mit gæt er, at der heller ikke her vil være noget at komme efter. Unægtelig lidt af et antiklimaks for benægterbrigaden.

Jeg er dog endnu sikrere på, at dette ikke i mindste måde vil få benægterbrigaden til at indstille skyderiet. Der er simpelthen for meget på spil for dem til, at de vil kunne tåle at lade sig distrahere af småting som kendsgerninger, dokumentation eller UVVU-afgørelser. Alle slige afgørelser vil naturligvis blive kaldt for hvidvaskninger, ledsaget af gentagelser af de samme gamle beskyldninger.


07-02-2010 11:17
Kosmos
★★★★★
(3992)
Jeg er dog endnu sikrere på, at dette ikke i mindste måde vil få benægterbrigaden til at indstille skyderiet

- ja, helt så glat går det sikkert næppe, jf. fx.:

Commonwealth Foundation goes on to recommend that the state General Assembly commission an external, independent investigation. Pennsylvania State Senate Education Committee Chairman Jeffrey Piccola has already promised Penn State that if its investigation is a whitewash, he will do one that isn't.
(Kilde)

Ogå så er der jo endelig 'good ole Inhofe'!
RE: Uafhængig?07-02-2010 12:22
kulden-varmenProfilbillede★★★★★
(2086)
Christoffer Bugge Harder skrev:
Efter indbruddet i CRU blev der igangsat en uafhængig undersøgelse af Michael Mann på hans universitet i Pennsylvania.


Mon undersøgelsen er uafhængig? Den er i hvertfald ikke kompentent når de ikke kan se på alle punkter.

Hvorfor har ingen andre forskere kunnet genskabe Mann's ishockeystav?


07-02-2010 14:03
kulden-varmenProfilbillede★★★★★
(2086)
Du må vælge enden tror du Mann's ishockeystav og så er du lige så useriøs som ham. Det vil sige at den globale opvarmning er fup.

Eller også kan du vælge at sige at Mann's ishockeystav forkert og spørgsmålet om den lobale opvarmning er åbent. Ubesvaret.
07-02-2010 16:45
Christoffer Bugge Harder
★★★★☆
(1573)
Jeg regnede bestemt med, at go´e gamle Watts (en tidligere TV-journalist uden nogen forskningsbaggrund) ville være ude med kritik, men jeg troede, at han ville begynde at snakke om hvidvaskning først. Men sørme om ikke han begynder med en løgn i stedet for (Og selvfølgelig hurtigt kører henover, at Watts og talrige andres ofte gentagne anklager mod Mann om undertrykkelse og svindel med data samt selvsvinget omkring "Mike´s Nature trick to hide the decline" blev kendt fuldstændigt ubeføjede):

They considered 4 allegations. They say only one had merit.


Som det fremgår af mit uddrag ovenfor, sagde panelet ikke, at beskyldning 4 "had merit" (var begrundet/berettiget); de sagde, at de ikke kunne tage klart stilling til substansen ifht. praksis indenfor Manns felt:

......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 for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities.


Nu bliver der så i stedet nedsat et panel af naturvidenskabssagkyndige, som skal kigge på sagernes natur mht. det fjerde punkt om afvigelse fra god videnskabelig opførsel. Hvis dette panel heller ikke finder frem til det, som Watts desperat ønsker at høre, vil han nok trække hvidvaskningskortet til den tid. Eller forsøge at begrave den i irrelevant nonsens.

Utilfredse politikere, som Hans Henrik henviser til, er (selvfølgelig) allerede begynde at snakke om hvidvask. Det er vanskeligt at forstå den republikanske undervisningsminister Piccolas trussel her om et nyt panel:

Commonwealth Foundation goes on to recommend that the state General Assembly commission an external, independent investigation. Pennsylvania State Senate Education Committee Chairman Jeffrey Piccola has already promised Penn State that if its investigation is a whitewash, he will do one that isn't.


som en opfordring om at finde frem til noget, der tilfredsstiller Manns kritikere, hvis ikke han skal kalde det for en "hvidvaskning".

I den henseende vil det minde det meget om undersøgelsen af Hockeystaven: Først finder et videnskabeligt panel fra NRC frem til, at der stort set intet kød er på kritikken af Hockeystaven (og slet intet mht. uredelighed), hvorefter Inhofe samt Joseph Barton nedsætter en politisk kommission, der skal finde frem til det modsatte. Og sådan vil det naturligvis blive ved, indtil nogen vil sige et eller andet, der kan tilfredsstille Inhofe - og næste gang og næste gang, indtil han går på pension eller dør af alderdom (hvilket man kunne ønske ikke varer alt for længe endnu). Im Westen nichts neues........
07-02-2010 17:14
Christoffer Bugge Harder
★★★★☆
(1573)
kulden-varmen skrev:
Du må vælge enden tror du Mann's ishockeystav og så er du lige så useriøs som ham. Det vil sige at den globale opvarmning er fup.

Eller også kan du vælge at sige at Mann's ishockeystav forkert og spørgsmålet om den lobale opvarmning er åbent. Ubesvaret.


Alle dine misforståelser kan opklares blot ved at kigge Wikipedias sammenfatning af Hockeystavskrigen. Her kan også ses en henvisning til NRCs uvildige rapport, som altså fandt frem til følgende:

"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes ...
Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium. The substantial uncertainties currently present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes prior to about A.D.


Surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial era are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence.


Den fandt også frem til, at ingen af anklagerne om fup eller svindel havde fugls føde på sig.

Kan du ikke snart se, om du kan få ind i hovedet, at den globale opvarmnings videnskab ikke hviler på Hockeystaven fra 1998 eller generelt på rekonstruktioner for den sags skyld? Jeg ved godt, at du ikke er stiv i indenadslæsning, men du har måske i det mindste øjne i hovedet? Så kunne du måske kigge på de målte temperaturer i de sidste 160 år?



Og mht. din påstand "ingen har kunnet replicere Manns resultater" kan du jo kigge på en graf over en 9-10 andre rekonstruktioner fra mange andre videnskabsfolk her nedenunder. Som du vel trods alt kan se, er der trods diverse uoverensstemmelser ingen, der har fundet andet end, at nutidens opvarmning er usædvanlig ifht. de sidste 1000 år.



Tilknyttet billede:


Redigeret d. 07-02-2010 17:26
07-02-2010 18:32
kulden-varmenProfilbillede★★★★★
(2086)
Christoffer Bugge Harder skrev:
Kan du ikke snart se, om du kan få ind i hovedet, at den globale opvarmnings videnskab ikke hviler på Hockeystaven fra 1998 eller generelt på rekonstruktioner for den sags skyld?


Hvor mange håndholdte termometre skal der til for lave et årligt gemnemsnit?

Hvordan skal man kunne tage hensyn til at landskabet forandre sig?






Deltag aktivt i debatten Oprejsning til Michael Mann:

Husk mig

Lignende indhold
DebatterSvarSeneste indlæg
Michael Mann og The Hockey Stick3807-04-2012 02:34
▲ Til toppen
Afstemning
Vil Donald Trump trække USA ud af Paris-aftalen?

Ja

Nej

Ved ikke


Tak for støtten til driften af Klimadebat.dk.
Copyright © 2007-2016 Klimadebat.dk | Kontakt | Privatlivspolitik