The Penn State inquiry exonerating Michael Mann -- the paleoclimatologist who came up with "the hockey stick" -- would be difficult to parody. Three of four allegations are dismissed out of hand at the outset: the inquiry announces that, for "lack of credible evidence", it will not even investigate them. (At this, MIT's Richard Lindzen tells the committee, "It's thoroughly amazing. I mean these issues are explicitly stated in the emails. I'm wondering what's going on?" The report continues: "The Investigatory Committee did not respond to Dr Lindzen's statement. Instead, [his] attention was directed to the fourth allegation.") Moving on, the report then says, in effect, that Mann is a distinguished scholar, a successful raiser of research funding, a man admired by his peers -- so any allegation of academic impropriety must be false.
You think I exaggerate?
This level of success in proposing research, and obtaining funding to conduct it, clearly places Dr. Mann among the most respected scientists in his field. Such success would not have been possible had he not met or exceeded the highest standards of his profession for proposing research...
Had Dr. Mann's conduct of his research been outside the range of accepted practices, it would have been impossible for him to receive so many awards and recognitions, which typically involve intense scrutiny from scientists who may or may not agree with his scientific conclusions...
Clearly, Dr. Mann's reporting of his research has been successful and judged to be outstanding by his peers. This would have been impossible had his activities in reporting his work been outside of accepted practices in his field.
In short, the case for the prosecution is never heard. Mann is asked if the allegations (well, one of them) are true, and says no. His record is swooned over. Verdict: case dismissed, with apologies that Mann has been put to such trouble.
The take from Ace:
Recall that one of the biggest knocks on climate "science" is that it never makes a prediction that can be verified (actually, it does, but they're always wrong), but that "proof" of its veracity comes from the fact that everyone's models agree with everyone else's.
So, in other words, we know the theory is true because people who believe in the theory agree with other people who believe in the theory that the theory is true.
Look, the models they make, based on the same assumptions they agree on, all say about the same thing! Q.E.D. That's Latin for "How my ass taste, bitch?"
Right? So that's a big problem right there. There is no proof of this except that the people pushing it all agree with each other.
Now, if you can believe it (and I still can't; this is stunning) this is precisely the reason they claim that Michael Mann cannot possibly be guilty of scientific malfeasance.
Honestly, if you haven't read this, get ready to catch your falling jaw.
The Climaquiddick mess was bad enough; to have a university like Penn State throw away any pretense of actual investigation to protect Mann...