Official Probe Shows Climategate Whitewash Link to Sandusky Child Sex Case

Legal investigation into Penn State University exposes institutional cover up of the Jerry Sandusky pedophile scandal. Judge’s findings also throw new light on “whitewash” investigation of Climategate suspect, Michael Mann.

Bad Boys Michael Mann and Jerry Sandusky Line Up for Penn State University

Bad Boys Michael Mann and Jerry Sandusky Line Up for Penn State University

Former FBI Director Judge Louis Freeh and his law firm have now published their independent report (July 12, 2012) that “assessed the facts and circumstances of the actions of Pennsylvania State University surrounding the child abuse crimes of former employee, Gerald A. Sandusky.” The shocking story made international headlinesLawyers for the child sex victims say Judge Freeh’s Report affirms that the university hierarchy “chose to protect themselves, Penn State’s brand and image.”

Sandusky was jailed on June 22, 2012 after being found guilty of 45 out of 48 counts of sexual abuse of young boys while employed as football coach at Pennsylvania State University (PSU). The Freeh Report adjudged that PSU administration and Board of Trustees fostered lying, cover-ups of wrongdoing, ignored the effects of staff misdeeds and condoned obfuscation of investigations of wrongdoing by Sandusky.

In this article we show how PSU’s cover up for Sandusky is eerily similar to the university’s “whitewash” investigation of discredited climatologist, Michael Mann after the “Climategate” scandal. A key suspect in the scandal, Mann is implicated for allegedly fraudulent research activities, before, during and outside of his employment at PSU. The university received a cool $2 million in climate research funding. Professor Fred Singer covers the essential details here.

But while arguments over PSU’s hidden “Climategate” emails will rage anew in the U.S., across the Canadian border in the Supreme Court of British Columbia Mann is close to losing another legal battle on this issue. Mann is yet again stonewalling a court over showing his hidden “dirty laundry” of dodgy data.

But such incessant secrecy won’t save Mann.  Judge Freeh’s damning report may persuade his Canadian counterpart that Mann’s libel suit against Canadian climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball is likely vexatious and premised on a cover up. Freeh’s findings will thus make it harder for Mann to dodge a Canadian Supreme Court requirement to hand over all his disputed “dirty laundry”. If Mann won’t comply he faces punitive legal sanctions. Leaked emails proved Mann was an influential figure among climatologists accused of fixing global warming records to win lucrative government research grants worth millions. In particular, evidence reveals a statistical “trick…to hide the decline” in reliability of proxy data in Mann’s research. And Mann is certainly ahead of his peers in arrogance because he’s the only climate scientist to boast on Facebook that he “shared the Nobel Peace Prize with other IPCC authors in 2007.”

As Dr. Klaus L. E. Kaiser says: “I would like to have him answer the following: (1) Name (all) the other IPCC authors he shared the prize with; (2.) How much of the money coming with the prize did he declare in his tax return for that year?”

Apart from Tim Ball’s legal team the wider scientific community is also poring over the Freeh report. What they are finding is disturbing similarities in the way PSU handled Sandusky compared with the Michael Mann “whitewash” probe of 2010.

One British climate co-conspirator of Mann, Professor Phil Jones, escaped criminal prosecution only by a legal loophole. While the Freeh Report does not use those words, its recommendations imply that PSU actively covered-up such crimes and created a culture of silence in the face of wrongdoing by the university’s media stars and idols.

Spanier and Schultz Led Sandusky and Mann Cover Ups

The stunning report, that took eight months to compile with over 400 interviews and which cost in excess of $4 million, pointed to the university’s overriding motive: money and prestige. It names PSU President Graham B. Spanier and Senior Vice President-Finance and Business Gary C. Shultz for failing to do their duty during the cover up of Sandusky’s crimes. PSU President Spanier was fired from his $813,000/year job for failing to hold a proper investigation into Sandusky. Schultz is charged with perjury for allegedly lying to a grand jury and failing to report suspected child abuse. Both men were likewise instrumental in getting Mann cleared in the PSU “Climategate” probe.

Last year this author first highlighted startling similarities in the self-serving way PSU handled both the Mann and Sandusky controversies. Despite Michael Mann being the most likely fraudster in “Climategate” PSU exonerated him with a one-sided investigation. The university conceded it only interviewed two witnesses – both ardent supporters of Mann – Jerry North and Donald Kennedy. Mann, once cleared by PSU of any wrongdoing then launched a libel case in Canada against climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball who criticized Mann’s mendacious methods. Ball, a leading skeptic, opined that Mann belongs “in the State pen, not Penn. State.”

Criminal Cover Up Taints University at “Highest Level”

Today, the Sandusky victims’ lawyers, Andrew Shubin and Justine Andronici, declare that the Freeh report exposes corruption in Penn State “at the highest level.”  They are satisfied that Judge Freeh’s Report focused on the inaction of these administrators who failed to create an environment that held senior officials accountable.

“From 1998-2011, Penn State’s “Tone at the Top” for transparency, compliance, police reporting and child protection was completely wrong, as shown by the inaction and concealment on the part of its most senior leaders, and followed by those at the bottom of the University’s pyramid of power,” Judge Freeh said.

The Freeh Report outlines hard-hitting recommendations in its 267-pages. His final statement: “It is critical that Old Main, the Board and the Penn State community never forget these failures and commit themselves to strengthening an open, compliant and victim sensitive environment — where everyone has the duty to ‘blow the whistle’ on anyone who breaks this trust, no matter how powerful or prominent they may appear to be.”

Spanier’s Bold-faced Lies to Save Michael Mann

Pointedly, Spanier and Schultz had falsely claimed that PSU’s self-serving investigation into Mann had  “spent hundreds of hours studying documents and interviewing people and looking at issues from all sides.”

But this was a bold-faced lie. Incredibly, Spanier saw to it that his “investigation committee” did not investigate three of the four charges against Mann – especially not the “trick…to hide the decline.” But PSU never sought any examination of his calculations and the term “hide the decline” doesn’t even feature in their report. Thus PSU may be adjudged to have willfully failed to investigate whether Mann was in breach of PSU’s Research Administration Policy No. 10.

Further examination of PSU’s “investigation” shows the investigators wanted to keep hidden Mann’s climate data processes. As PSU admits, “enormous confusion has been caused by interpretations of the e-mails and their content.”

 PSU Investigation Fostered “Confusion”

But rather than get to the root of the “confusion” that would be best cleared up by full and frank examination of such emails that supposedly “hide the decline” PSU irregularly dropped three of the four charges against Mann and then battled (and still battle today) to sustain such “confusion.” On page 9 of PSU’s shoddy report they admit the reason they didn’t probe too deeply into Mann’s emails was because to do so would be “undermining [to] confidence in his findings as a scientist… and public trust in science in general and climate science specifically.”

When told by the subsequent Investigation Committee that they weren’t investigating the substantive charges, Richard Lindzen, a world-leading climatologist, told the committee, “It’s thoroughly amazing. I mean these issues are explicitly stated in the emails. I’m wondering what’s going on?”

Thereafter, other authorities blindly accepted PSU’s exoneration of Mann without conducting any further serious inquiry into his alleged data rigging. But the NAS found that Mann’s methods had no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. But skeptics accused Mann of lying when he claimed NAS said the contrary.

Money not Morals Motivated Penn. State University Board

At the height of the Climategate controversy statistical experts like Steve McIntyre and Edward Wegman demonstrated that Mann’s mangling of the statistics “erased” the Medieval Warm Period, along with other well established temperature variations. [1.]

McIntyre noted: “It’s hard not to transpose the conclusions of the Penn State Climategate “investigation” into Penn State’s attitude towards misconduct charges in their profitable football program.”

Myron Ebell, Director of Energy and Global Warming Policy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute observes, “The Penn State ethics review [of Mann] was “designed as a whitewash. The evidence of manipulation of data is too obvious and too strong.” Ebell and other critics argue that, as with football coach Sandusky, Michael E. Mann brought huge financial rewards to the university. The smell of money swayed the senses of Spanier because in his world money and success equated to integrity and prestige. This was tellingly revealed in the reasons he gave why Mann should be exonerated.

Such critics point to Spanier’s statements about both men as proof of the (corruptible) self-serving money motive at PSU. Spanier first declared that Mann’s:

“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…”

Then Spanier issued an eerily similar statement to exonerate Sandusky:

“This level of success on the football field and revenue generated from it, clearly places Coaches Paterno and Sandusky among the most respected professionals in their field. Such success would not have been possible had he not met or exceeded the highest standards of their profession in operating a football program…”

“Had Coach Paterno or Coach Sandusky’s conduct of their program been outside the range of accepted practices, it would have been impossible for them to receive so many awards and recognitions, which typically involve intense scrutiny from peers who may or may not agree with his program … ”

The above statements prove the status of the football program and its leaders, Paterno and Sandusky, are an EXACT parallel to Michael Mann’s status. Both brought massive funding to PSU. Both enjoyed the adoration of the press. Both worked outside the system of checks and balances. Both were “investigated” by PSU staff. Both were cleared by PSU of wrongdoing. From plain reading of Freeh’s report we see there is NO reason to believe that the same corrupt administration that empowered Paterno and Sandusky’s crimes would act any differently in Mann’s case.

Canadian Court to Go Where Corrupt U.S. Authorities Refuse to Look

Whatever the fallout from Freeh in the U.S. it now looks most likely that the Supreme Court of British Columbia will be the first place where Penn. State’s illicit cover up will be fully exposed. The Wall Street Journal agrees a slew of related civil and criminal lawsuits may follow.

Top Canadian skeptic climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball’s legal team is moving ever closer to defeating Michael Mann’s ludicrous libel suit against Ball. Ball’s lawyer is applying Canadian rules of evidence to corner Mann into handing over his hidden hockey stick data for courtroom examination.

In essence, Ball’s lawyer will argue that Mann’s ‘Hockey stick’ graph isn’t so much about climate – but about statistical treatment of data, and the reliability of the data source. “Climategate” emails already prove that Mann covered up data errors (his “dirty laundry”) he already knew about. As such a full audit of his data is no different from any accounts audit where qualified statisticians can fully and conclusively analyze the numbers for a jury to decide if intentional fraud had been perpetrated.

But with what little evidence has already filtered out into the public domain we can see Mann’s procedure of short centered principal components analysis created a bias towards a hockey stick, even with random data, which any court would agree was proof of intentional fraud.  As Tim Ball predicts: “Climategate, like its namesake Watergate, will ultimately collapse because of the cover-up reinvigorated by the phony inquiries.”

As such, Mann’s destiny looks to be a jail cell alongside Sandusky thanks to PSU’s blind pursuit of money that will consign the university to no less ignominy while Climategate will be acknowledged as the science crime of the century.

[1.] AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE ‘HOCKEY STICK’ GLOBAL CLIMATE RECONSTRUCTION, also known as The Wegman report was authored by Edward J. Wegman, George Mason University, David W. Scott, Rice University, and Yasmin H. Said, The Johns Hopkins University with the contributions of John T. Rigsby, III, Naval Surface Warfare Center, and Denise M. Reeves, MITRE Corporation.


Filed under Uncategorized

26 responses to “Official Probe Shows Climategate Whitewash Link to Sandusky Child Sex Case

  1. I didn’t know about Phil Jones and the legal loophole before.

    • johnosullivan

      Yes. The loophole was effectively the derisory six-month statute of limitations on any prosecution. Absurdly, it can take more than six months for anyone breaking the FOIA to be brought to task by UK prosecutors. This toothless aspect of the FOI Act was barely mentioned by mainstream UK journalists:

    • Yes, it’s unfortunate the man-caused global warming crowd felt it necessary to ‘lose’ the original source data then conspire to twist the remaining extrapolated data to fit their agenda.

      I’d be less skeptical of man-caused global warming if the scientists had played this straight with us.

      You also have to look at who funds this research. The UN shovels loads of money to the University of East Anglia Climate Research Center. The UN is all about redistributing wealth from the US, Japan and Europe to the third world. Carbon off-set taxes are meant to do just that.

      Hey, you can’t get research money if you don’t tow the line on man-caused global warming. You fight the climate change heterodoxy and you will be defunded.

      Guess, Sandusky, Spanier, Paterno, Curley, Schultz and Penn State Faculty gave a brand new name to “State Penn Nittany Liars!?”

  2. Pingback: Should the Penn. State University investigation of Dr. Mann be revisited? | The Drinking Water Advisor

  3. Nullius in Verba

    Short-centred PCA could have been a mistake by someone who didn’t understand what he was doing or how the mathematics worked – claiming to be a science professor while being unable to operate MS Excel is not usually seen as fraud.

    The most significant actual fraud was the witholding of the r-squared cross-validation results. The reconstruction method works by lining up the tree ring data with measured temperatures in the 20th century to calibrate the scale, and then assuming that the relationship with temperature holds for all the rest of the tree ring data. Because this process automatically gives a match in the calibration period, whether the tree ring-temperature relationship is real or not, it can’t be assumed that the reconstruction method is really outputting temperature, so it’s normal to withold part of the measured temperature data from calibration and check to see if it matches the reconstruction – does the method give the right answer?

    Mann calculated the match, using a statistic called the r-squared correlation coefficient, but found that over most of the reconstruction there was essentially no match. We know he calculated it because he gave r-squared results for the one part of the data where there was a weak match, and because it was in the code he eventually was forced to publish, and because he told journalists that it had passed the tests. But he very carefully didn’t publish most of the r-squared numbers themselves, and strongly resisted attempts by McIntyre to get confirmation of them. That’s what the ‘dirty laundry’ comment was about.

    Mann published his reconstruction after having tested it and finding it didn’t work, and he withheld the adverse test results, while claiming it had passed. The short-centering could have been a stupid mistake (and probably was), but on the r-squared tests he must have known exactly what he was doing. That was deliberate scientific fraud.

    • johnosullivan

      Great comment! That’s a superb and concise explanation of reasonable concerns about Mann’s alleged data fraud. I’m taking the liberty of dropping it off to Mike to see if he has anything to say in answer to it.

      • Nullius in Verba

        You’re very welcome!

        You can find a definitive (and very readable) history of these events in Andrew Montford’s book “The Hockeystick Illusion”. It’s one of those books that *everyone* should read.

        You can get a free taster with Andrew’s related online essay “Caspar and the Jesus Paper”, which became an internet sensation when it first came out. The book is clearer and more complete, though.

        PS. The method Mann used to generate the reconstruction is usually called ‘inverse regression’, although there are various technical names for specialised forms of it. The r-squared statistic was just used to *check* that it was working properly. Other than that, no problems.

        For an amusing sidelight on what mathematicians think of inverse regression, see Ed Cook’s email about “an ugly paper to review”. (1054756929.txt) That’s what happens when proper statisticians see what climate scientists are up to.

      • johnosullivan

        Many thanks! I did receive a free copy of Montford’s book from his publisher. Although I’ve yet to read it cover to cover, I found it very useful and entertaining when I referred to it last year when assisting Tim Ball in his legal battle versus Mann. I do agree that it’s a “must read” and I will certainly be writing more on this issue in due course.

  4. Pingback: Breaking: Climate Scientist Michael Mann Lawyers Up after Penn State Child Sex Link | johnosullivan

  5. Brent

    Thanks for putting this together. Inspired me to surf over to Tim Ball’s website and give a donation.

  6. Joe Pedersen

    Putting the picture of a professor whose scientific results you disagree with, next to the picture of a convicted child rapist, is the technique of a journalist with no professional ethics relying on sensationalism to attract an audience, and does not support your argument.

    You should be ashamed, but I suspect that if you had that capacity you would never have stooped so low in the first place.

    • johnosullivan

      Dear Mr. Pederson,
      Experts in statistics have identified that Mann created his discredited “hockey stick” graph using a statistical method called the r-squared correlation coefficient. We know this because Mann gave r-squared results for the one part of the data where there was a weak match and it was in the code he eventually had to publish. But Mann unreasonably withheld all his r-squared numbers that critics say must be the ‘dirty laundry’ he referred to in his infamous Climategate email. Such emails also prove Mann asked his co-conspirators to assist him in the suppression/destruction of incriminating evidence.
      Thus absent Mann’s disclosure of all his r-squared numbers we are right to assume he lied when he claimed he tested his r-squared numbers and they worked. This is strictly akin to accounting fraud. When accountants refuse to show their working out after they have made claims that have helped win them over $500,000 in fees then my legal nose tells me they probably committed fraud.
      Currently, Mann is suing Dr. Tim Ball in the British Columbia Supreme Court and once again refusing to disclose his disputed r-squared numbers despite the legal requirement that he comply with Ball’s motion in this matter. As such, if Mann continues to refuse to disclose such ‘dirty laundry’ the court may fairly sanction him/dismiss his case with costs in favor of Ball. That you are an apologist for such scientific misconduct proves you to be a hypocrite in your above commentary.

    • Ferd

      Did you read the article? I guess you’re not ashamed of Mann lying (yes, it’s lying), but I’m guessing his lies support your point of view, so it must be OK. And lying for money is better, right? Your side has nothing to cry “shame!” at, hypocrite.

    • Steve Koch

      Seriously? Sandusky was whitewashed by the exact same Penn State officials who “investigated” Mann. Now that the credibility of those officials has been destroyed in the Sandusky case, it is time to reopen the investigation of Mann’s misconduct. This time a credible outsider needs to do the investigation since Penn State has shown they are not to be trusted.

      Great work, John.

  7. Pingback: Transterrestrial Musings - UnManned

    • johnosullivan

      Please don’t diminish your contribution because it is very welcome and necessary; we must all work together to beat the climate fraudsters.
      All the best,

  8. Jim T

    I’m pretty sure that the statement from Spannier that you quoted about Paterno and Sandusky isn’t an actual quote from him. It is (uncharacteristically) confusingly written on Climate Audit, but I think that SM was switching some of the names/circumstances around to make it clear how absurd the actual statement was regarding Mann.

  9. There is no debate about whether mathematics is necessary in science. Mathematics is useful in helping us understand nature. Understanding climate change is not a matter of instinct. Science is not a matter of how we might feel about something. We can use mathematics to demonstrate why climatism’s fear of humanity and industrial man is really climatism’s detour to helplessness. For example, the mathematics of McShane and Wyner should be thought of as the chalkboard squeak heard ’round the world: M&S’ paper did not simply debunk MBH98/99/08 (aka, the ‘hockey stick’ graph). That’s been done many times by many others. M&S’ greatest contribution is as an inspiration to a new generation of scientist and statistician to examine the pseudo science of Western academia and to pick up the chalk and start outlining the dead bodies upon which the failed ideology of the Left lies.

  10. erschroedinger

    What kind of slimeball equates a disagreement over global warming with child rape? Lower than low, that’s what kind of slimeball. The kind of gutterball demigography we’ve seen from neo Nazis.

  11. Pingback: Schitterende juridische soap tussen Mann and National Review

  12. Wow, what a great article.

  13. tom

    What a disgusting smear. Lowest of the low.

  14. The New Reforms needed to correct Joe Paterno’s violations of the Clery Act and Big Ten Conference and NCAA Rules are proof enough, the Culture of Football at PSU was based on silence, secrecy, cover ups, and non-compliance.

    Regardless, this is a Penn State Scandal and Paterno was a major participant. What Sandusky did was crime but he was part of Penn State before he retired, and the investigation led to the finding the Clery Act, NCAA, and Big Ten violations of Paterno’s Program of which it proved Penn State Lack Institutional Control and Non-Compliance with allowing arrested and suspended players to play and were not reported, and that was an competitive advantage under NCAA Rules.

    This is not hate just facts that the Sandusky Scandal investigations and convictions, led to The Paterno Scandal within his Football Program and caused a Penn State Scandal that left the President and Trustees in the red-faced position to put in New Reforms.

    When Penn Staters start to accept these facts they will be able to move on and knowing today, Penn State is living up to what Joe preached but did not practice in reality.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s