News that doesn't receive the necessary attention.

Saturday, November 26, 2011

Michael Mann brought at least $4,166,168 to Penn State. Obama stimulus cash via the NSF amounted to $2.4M of that

Penn State has received at least $4, 166,168 in research grants in which Michael Mann was involved. A version of Mann's CV lists Penn State funding totaling $1,739,000 prior to the 2009 Obama stimulus/NSF funding. Adding the stimulus cash of $2,426,175 via 2 projects in which Mann was involved either as principal or co-principal brings the total to $4,166,168.

In June 2009, Mann got a grant for $541, 184 as 'principal investigator' followed by another for $1.9 million with Mann as 'co-principal investigator' along with other Penn State personnel for a total of $2.4 million just from the Obama 'stimulus.'

Mann lists his "Funded Research" on his CV. The only Mann CV I've been able to find as of 11/27/11 does not include the 2009 Obama stimulus money ($2,426,175). He apparently did list those monies on some version of his CV but links appear to be dead for such a version at the moment.

12/2/2009, "If Grant Money Determines Your Conclusions on Climate . . .," Planet Gore, Edward John Craig


1/20/2010, "Michael Mann's Climate Stimulus," Wall St Journal, "A case study in one job 'saved.'"

"As for stimulus jobs—whether "saved" or "created"—we thought readers might be interested to know whose employment they are sustaining. More than $2.4 million is stimulating the career of none other than
  • Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann.

Mr. Mann is the creator of the famous hockey stick graph, which purported to show some 900 years of minor temperature fluctuations, followed by a spike in temperatures over the past century. His work, which became a short-term sensation when seized upon by Al Gore, was later discredited. Mr. Mann made the climate spotlight again last year as a central player in the emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, which showed climatologists massaging data, squelching opposing views, and hiding their work from the public.

Mr. Mann came by his grants via the National Science Foundation, which received $3 billion in stimulus money. Last June, the foundation approved a $541,184 grant to fund work "Toward Improved Projections of the Climate Response to Anthropogenic Forcing," which will contribute "to the understanding of abrupt climate change."
  • Principal investigator? Michael Mann.

He received another grant worth nearly $1.9 million to investigate the role of "environmental temperature on the transmission of vector-borne diseases." Mr. Mann is listed as a "co-principal investigator" on that project. Both grants say they were "funded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009."

The NSF made these awards prior to last year's climate email scandal, but a member of its Office of Legislative and Public Affairs told us she was "unaware of any discussion regarding suspending or changing the awards made to Michael Mann." So your tax dollars will continue to fund a climate scientist whose main contribution to the field has been to discredit climate science."


(NSF personnel spent much of their time traveling for sex with subordinates or viewing live porn as it now admits. It's a separate question if a functioning science organization would have awarded Mann hard earned US taxpayer dollars at any time much less in an economic depression. ) More on that follows:


The NSF is swamped with personnel using US taxpayer money to travel and pursue intimate relationships with NSF subordinates, a decade long pattern of excessive porn watching on the job including live porn acts also paid by the US tax payer. NSF says it has so many internal problems it's not in a position to oversee science projects it funds:

9/29/2009, "Porn Surfing rampant at US science foundation," Washington Times, by Jim McElhatton

""To manage this dramatic increase without an increase in staff required us to significantly reduce our efforts to investigate grant fraud," the inspector general recently told Congress in a budget request.

  • in coming years
  • as a direct result."...

As for the unnamed "senior executive" who spent at least 331 days looking at pornography at work, investigators said his proclivity for pornography was

common knowledge among several co-workers....

"At the same time, employees were generally reluctant to make any official report or complaint because the misconduct involved a senior staff member and employees feared that they would suffer in some form of complaining," the investigators later wrote in a summary of the case.

Another employee in a different case was caught with hundreds of pictures, videos and even PowerPoint slide shows containing pornography. Asked by an investigator whether he had completed any government work on a day when a significant amount of pornography was downloaded, the employee responded,

  • "Um, I can't remember," according to records."...


4/7/09, "Senators fault science agency over lax handling of pornography case," NY Times, by Gardiner Harris


2/8/10, "IPCC and CRU are the same corrupt organization," SPPI, by Dr. Tim Ball

"Cost of the corruption of climate science by the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) is likely a trillion dollars already and there is no measure of the

  • lives lost
  • because of unnecessary reactions like biofuels affecting food supplies....
Most people, including the media, don’t seem to realize the IPCC is the CRU. Some articles mention both but don’t make the connection. ...

However, failure to make the connection allows people involved to develop defenses, withdraw from associations or go into hiding....

Their work has cost the world an enormous amount of grief, conflict and money.

  • It is time to total the massive amounts of money given to narrowly directed research;
  • the cost of the impact on
  • energy policy and economies;

the lost jobs and opportunities from industries forced out of business; the unnecessary subsidies to research and businesses

  • chasing unworkable alternate energies;
  • the taxes and legislative restrictions on businesses and other activities.

They provided the false vehicle to carry left wing policies of tax and total control followed by President Obama. Their deception has

  • it is time they are all held accountable....

After the IPCC was formed at Villach Austria in 1988 work began on the first Report that appeared in 1990. This report is no longer available on the IPCC website.

  • It included Figure 7.1c the diagram of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) that challenged the CRU claim the 20th century was the warmest ever. (Figure 1).

This led to the first major corruption as they rewrote the historic record by creating the hockey stick.

Figure 1: The controversial Figure 7.1c in IPCC 1990 Report

[note to blog reader, I couldn't find the above graph on SPPI but it was in original CFP article the link for which appears to be inactive now. ed.]

There is extensive discussion of the origin of the diagram in a January 5, 2007 email from Phil Jones, disgraced Director of the CRU and Wikipedia exploiter William Connolley.

As Jones says, I’ve added a few extra names in the cc of this email list to see if we can definitively determine where the figure in the subject title comes from. The background is that the skeptics keep referring back to it and I’d like to prove that it is a schematic and it isn’t based on real data, but on presumed knowledge at some point around the late 1980s. If you think it is based on something real. What we’d like to do is show this either on ‘Real Climate’ or as background in a future paper, or both.
  • The diagram contradicted the hockey stick graph in the 2001 Report so proving it was not valid strengthened the case. At the same time they undermined the credibility of Soon and Baliunas who proved existence of the MWP in a multitude of other records.

The first public exposure was dubbed the Chapter 8 scandal and involved Benjamin Santer. He was lead author of that chapter and rewrote portions without consulting other authors.

  • As Lord Monckton explains, “In comes Santer and re-writes it for them, after the scientists have sent in their finalized draft, and that finalized draft said at five different places, there is no discernable human effect on global temperature — I’ve seen a copy of this —
  • Santer went through, crossed out all of those, and substituted a new conclusion, and this has been the official conclusion ever since.”

Santer originally denied the accusations and said his actions were covered by the rules that required the Scientific Report agree with the Summary for Policymakers (SPM). It was an early measure of the way the CRU people used the rules to control the results....

Phil Jones refused to disclose how he calculated the increase of 0.6°C since the end of the 19th century.

  • Jones still fails to disclose the information....
They left out major parts of the natural system of climate effectively ignoring the Sun, water vapor, and geothermal heat among others.

  • They controlled and falsified the world’s view of climate change by deliberately releasing the Summary For Policymakers (SPM) with all its exaggerations and limitations."...


No comments:


Blog Archive

About Me

My photo
I'm the daughter of an Eagle Scout (fan of the Brooklyn Dodgers and Mets) and a Beauty Queen.