The Climategate and Jerry Sandusky Scandals: A Common Thread

[4est_4est_Gump]

By T.S. Weidler
July 31, 2012

America, it's time to meet your newest top-secret government employee: a professional cover-up artist with a radical agenda.

Graham Spanier is the former Penn State University president who was fired during the Jerry Sandusky investigation for failing to properly investigate Sandusky when the pedophilia allegations first surfaced.

Spanier's "investigation" of Jerry Sandusky was so thoroughly inept that it got him fired. When it was completed, Spanier stated that he had "complete confidence in how they have handled the allegations against Sandusky," and he was fired very shortly thereafter. The recent Freeh report indicates that the investigation was conducted for the purpose of finding nothing. In other words, it was a cover-up.

It wasn't the only time Spanier rigged an inept investigation for the purpose of finding nothing. In 2010, his investigators found that Penn State climatologist Michael Mann had done nothing wrong when he invented his "hockey stick trick," to "hide the decline" and lend false credibility to climate change theory. The difference between the Mann investigation and the Sandusky investigation is that one covered up a sex offender and the other covered up a fraud.

The Climategate "Investigation"

The methodology, however, was equally bad. The "Climategate" investigation was conducted by five Penn State employees. It is available here [ http://live.psu.edu/pdf/Final_Investigation_Report.pdf ]. The five internal investigators were given a list of four specific allegations of academic fraud, and they proceeded to dismiss the three most significant allegations outright, without investigating them at all. The next step was to read 376 e-mails written by Mann and dismiss 329 of them. After this, they conducted a two-hour interview with Michael Mann, in which he (shocker!) denied doing anything wrong.

The next step was to interview two outside climatologists, noted within the report itself for their personal support of Mann himself and his science, named Dr. Gerald North from Texas A&M and Dr. Donald Kennedy from Stanford University. Naturally, these two friends supported Mann. Next, they interviewed Dr. Richard Lindzen at MIT, who accused them of ignoring the most important allegations. They ignored him and moved on. The report actually states this. "We did not respond to him."

After this, the investigators deemed that Michael Mann hadn't done anything wrong. They did not investigate three quarters of the allegations against him, and they did not interview anyone with an opposing viewpoint. President Spanier then stated, "I know they have taken the time and spent hundreds of hours studying documents and interviewing people and looking at issues from all sides." This statement is blatantly untrue, as the report itself indicates. It also sounds disturbingly similar to Spanier's statement about the Sandusky cover-up -- "I have complete confidence in how they handled the allegations against Sandusky" -- which got him fired.

When Graham Spanier organizies an internal investigation of his own celebrity employees, he finds what he wants to find, and he doesn't seem to care a lick whether it is true. An internal investigation overseen by Spanier is about as credible as a child rape investigation by the U.N.

This brings us back to Jerry Sandusky, the child rapist. There are two reasons Graham Spanier helped cover for Sandusky. First is Spanier's well-known instinct to protect his friends. Second is that Spanier himself has a radical sexual agenda.

The Child Rape Cover-Ups

His career started in the early '70s, when he became one of the world's leading academic voices for "swinging," or mate-swapping. He wrote his doctoral dissertation on the subject, and he frequently published additional essays throughout the 1970s. His conclusion was that mate-swapping is good for marriages as long as it is not done in secret. In an article on mate-swapping that he co-wrote with Charles L. Cole from 1975, we find this gem: "We choose to view deviant behavior simply as behavior that some value and others consider wrong. An individual's behavior becomes deviant only when others define it as deviant."

With this attitude toward sexual morality, does it surprise you that Spanier himself personally refused to investigate a completely different sex scandal just a few days before the allegations against Sandusky were first brought to his attention?

In February 2002, a man named Paul McLaughlin spoke personally with Graham Spanier and told him that he had been sexually molested as a child by a Penn State professor named John Neisworth, on the Penn State campus. McLaughlin offered Spanier a copy of a tape recording in which the professor admitted the abuse.

Spanier told him, "Don't bother," and never pursued the case at all. A few days later, on March 1, football assistant Mike McQuery reported finding Jerry Sandusky anally raping a boy in the shower, and Spanier again dismissed the allegation, eventually leading to the current shambles of Penn State. The crime was evil. The cover-up destroyed an institution.

...

The Big Promotion

America, meet your newest secret consultant. Graham Spanier, the professional cover-up artist with a history of promoting and covering evil deeds, has now been hired by your federal government for a top-secret consulting job that is so secret that we aren't even allowed to know what it is. Sounds like a good fit. This man's primary skill is covering up dark things that make people look bad.

They need him for something. They hired him as soon as he was available.

Don't believe another word they tell you.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012..._jerry_sandusky_scandals_a_common_thread.html

 

[kbate]

"An individual's behavior becomes deviant only when others define it as deviant."

This is a universal truth. Deviant behaviour does not exist outside of social mores and published law, without those deviant behaviour would simply be behaviour.

It was once the norm to marry a woman as soon as breasts developed, today that same behaviour gets you a life term in isolation.

Why? Because today we have eletricity, machines and cold storage for food and can afford to treat people as children until they are 26.

Either way, Graham Spanier is a shit and hopefully he is consulting on how to disarm IEDs with a spoon.

 

[mercury14]

(Climategate was investigated by seven agencies, not just Penn State)

 

[busybody..]

(Climategate was investigated by seven agencies, not just Penn State)

STFU, NIGGERPOONZANDI, you SCHMUCK!

 

[RobDownSouth]

By T.S. Weidler
July 31, 2012


http://www.americanthinker.com/2012..._jerry_sandusky_scandals_a_common_thread.html

Way to trivialize child rape, Chief.
I suspect if you had real children of your own, you might think differently.

 

[kbate]

Way to trivialize child rape, Chief.
I suspect if you had real children of your own, you might think differently.

You didn't read the article. (again)

 

[RobDownSouth]

You didn't read the article. (again)

And you don't understand AJ.

He doesn't read teh articles he posts either. He just bolds headlines to get a political point across i.e. "Hey, I can demonize climate change by comparing it to Jerry Sandusky!".

 

[mercury14]

And you don't understand AJ.

He doesn't read teh articles he posts either. He just bolds headlines to get a political point across i.e. "Hey, I can demonize climate change by comparing it to Jerry Sandusky!".

If you believe in climate change science you support child rape.

 

[Peregrinator]

(Climategate was investigated by seven agencies, not just Penn State)

Don't disarm a perfectly good talking point with facts.

 

[trysail]

(Climategate was investigated by seven agencies, not just Penn State)

...and not a damn one of the whitewashes examined the so-called "science."

 

[RobDownSouth]

Of course they are "whitewashes" to True Believers like Trysail.

Derp.

 

[trysail]

...Climategate inquiries...

Your main problem is that you don't know anything about the investigations. Perhaps if you'd read something about them, you might appear to be better informed.

Here's a start:
http://thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/Climategate-Inquiries.pdf


...though I'm not optimistic; 60 pages is likely beyond your abilities.

 

[mercury14]

...and not a damn one of the whitewashes examined the so-called "science."

And you're dropping a red herring. Not to mention you're citing a bunch of anti-global warming fanatics funded by secret donors. And it's written by an accountant. Do they teach climatology in accounting classes now?

The investigations were about the scientific integrity involved. Review of the science itself is left to the greater scientific community just like every other work.

 

[Peregrinator]

"Your main problem is that you're not reading the propaganda propagated by people with an obvious agenda."

Andrew fucking Montford. Puhleeeze.

The Hockey Stick Illusion published by Stacey International was greeted by mixed reviews. Positive from the likes of Christopher Booker and Matt Ridley, well known right wing climate skeptics
RealClimate described it as as "Montford’s typical sloppy research" in an article entitled The Montford Delusion. [10]. Elsewhere it was described as an "entertaining conspiracy yarn" [11] Another review entitled Mean-spirited scepticism by Richard Joyner Emeritus Professor at Nottingham Trent University says "Montford’s book is not an honest contribution"[12] In 'Chemistry World' Professor Nick Hewitt writes "Here, one small part of the body of evidence that shows the Earth is warming is examined in tedious detail... but this polemic does absolutely nothing to alter the physics of the Earth system. Andrew Montford declares he studied chemistry - with the benefit of his scientific education one would think he should know better. Readers of Chemistry World will have far better things to do than read this pedantic book."[13]
Alastair McIntosh writing for the Scottish Review of Books sums up :"Montford’s analysis might cut the mustard with tabloid intellectuals but not with most scientists. The Hockey Stick Illusion might serve a psychological need in those who can’t face their own complicity in climate change, but at the end of the day it’s exactly what it says on the box: a write-up of somebody else’s blog." [14]

~sourcewatch.

 

[trysail]

...noise...

If all else fails, attack the messenger.

 

[Peregrinator]

When the three British Government enquiries into the CRU email saga were completed the Global Warming Policy Foundation immediately announced it would to stir the issue up once more. Montford was commisioned to write an "enquiry" into the climategate emails claims and was paid £3000 for his efforts. The results were released in September 2010 The choice of Montford was ironic given the serious inaccuracies in his book, which grew out of a manuscript he produced that summarised posts on Climate Audit[15]. Furthermore the Global Warming Policy Foundation's own funding is mired in controversy whilst it enjoys charitable status , yet Montford himself is critical of what he calls 'fake charities'. [16] In his "enquiry" Montford criticized the official enquiries for not including known skeptics on their panels. This is a distortion of the truth however, since the Parliamentary Enquiry at the least included Graham Stringer Labour MP for Blackley and Broughton , a man who has consistently voted very strongly against laws to stop climate change . [17] [18] Montford knows this and records a cosy chat with Stringer on his blog[19]

 

[Peregrinator]

If all else fails, attack the messenger.

Sloppy research is sloppy research. A lying liar is a liar who lies.

 

[mercury14]

If all else fails, attack the messenger.

Oh, so now your sources shouldn't be vetted? WTF?

And oh, let's see what's in the news today, shall we? Oops, Richard Muller now says global warming is man-made. LOL. Dr. Judy is next you know...

About-face: Former climate change skeptic now says global warming is man-made
By Liz Goodwin, Yahoo! News | The Lookout – 4 hrs ago

Richard Muller and his daughter Elizabeth Muller in 2011. (Paul Sakuma/AP)

He finally came around to what other climate scientists have been spouting for years. Richard A. Muller, a physics professor at the University of California-Berkeley, announced over the weekend that his much-publicized investigation into climate data has found that humans' production of carbon dioxide is causing the world to slowly warm up. And this process could speed up dramatically in the coming years.

Muller's conclusions attract special attention because of his vocal self-styling as a converted climate change skeptic. Muller criticized global warming studies for sloppy and self-serving data selection and a lack of transparency that obscured errors; he then lambasted fellow scientists for circling the wagons and calling any climate change deniers wrong. Muller says he's still upset that the American Physical Society declared the evidence for warming "incontrovertible" a few years ago in an official statement.

"We don't do things in science that are incontrovertible," Muller said in an interview with Yahoo News.

Muller took matters into his own hands and embarked on his own investigation into the data with his daughter Elizabeth and a team of scientists two years ago. His Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project attracted funding from the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation, the nonprofit outfit of a wealthy businessman who denies that global warming is happening. Three years later, Muller ended up surprising himself when his research confirmed everything those same studies that drew his skepticism concluded, and then some. Muller says his study's results are more reliable than many previous ones because he intentionally avoided the data pitfalls he objected to, such as only using a portion of the global temperatures available. (He expounds on his methods here.)

Muller's study has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, but he says he plans to do so at some point. One climate scientist, Benjamin D. Santer, told the Los Angeles Times he thinks posting the study online and not in a journal is in "the spirit of publicity, not the spirit of science" and may do more to hurt the global warming cause than help it. But Muller wants to get feedback on his methods and to share his results with everyone, avoiding what he sees as a secrecy and lack of transparency that surrounded earlier climate change studies.

Though Muller is now entirely convinced that the Earth is warming due to man-made causes, he still expresses disdain for people who try to raise passions around the issue by pointing to local weather events, such as the drought scorching up America's Midwest right now, as proof of the phenomenon. (He attributes the drought to La Niña, a temporary cooling of the ocean.) The effects of global warming on local weather patterns are unknown, and even as two-thirds of the world has heated up, another one-third has shown a gradual cooling over the past 250 years, he says. The overall effect is a troubling global warming, but Muller has no patience for simplifications that stray from the truth.

"I'm personally very worried," he says of global warming. Muller says that so far the warming has been "tiny," but that everything points to the process speeding up. "I personally suspect that it will be bad."

Muller is now wading into another controversy, by endorsing the process of natural gas extraction called fracking for developing countries, which tend to rely more on coal. Coal production creates more carbon dioxide, but fracking has also drawn its share of environmentalist critics.

"I believe the only kind of action that is sustainable is that which is profitable, and fortunately we can do that," he says. "We can become much more energy efficient." http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout...keptic-now-says-global-warming-134617449.html

 

[trysail]

... Richard Muller...

Richard Muller is still trying to figure out what he believes. He does believe in promoting Richard Muller.


http://youtu.be/qCK11ZssUI4

http://talkingabouttheweather.wordp...y-no-idea-what-it-is-to-be-a-climate-skeptic/

Richard Muller has absolutely no idea what it is to be a climate skeptic
by Harold Ambrose

***​

Hurricane Katrina cannot be attributed to global warming. The number of hurricanes hitting the United States has been going down, not up; likewise for intense tornadoes. Polar bears aren’t dying from receding ice, and the Himalayan glaciers aren’t going to melt by 2035. And it’s possible that we are currently no warmer than we were a thousand years ago, during the “Medieval Warm Period” or “Medieval Optimum,” an interval of warm conditions known from historical records and indirect evidence like tree rings. And the recent warm spell in the United States happens to be more than offset by cooling elsewhere in the world, so its link to “global” warming is weaker than tenuous.

-Richard Muller, Ph.D.​

...Muller has actually said something important here, and it will get completely lost in the noise of a pseudo-skeptic becoming the non-skeptic that he was all along, in the public mind. Lost is the fact that some of the all-time favorite alarmist AGW claims have been rejected by Muller, even as he embraces other alarmist claims and the alarmist mission as a whole. The logic Muller employs is devastatingly weak. He says the recent warming matches the recent rise in carbon dioxide. But he knows that there have been past warmings, and he knows that they by definition were not caused by human emissions. How he can determine that the past physics that drove past warmings have ceased to be operative? In other words, if the Sun rises 39 billion, 999 million, 999 thousand, 999 times, and on the 40 billionth time the Sun rises I deem that it has done so for a new reason, most sane folks would declare me mad. And they would be right.

There is no compelling reason to look fearfully at the climate system until it begins to exhibit new behavior, just as there is no compelling reason to ascribe the Sun’s rising to anything new.

Muller acknowledges variability during the preceding 1,000 years. And what about the preceding 10,000 years? What about the preceding three million years? The variability during all wider time frames swamps the recent noise in the temperature record! The Hockey Stick, including and especially Muller’s own version of it, is a reckless perversion of science and an instrument of control. Period.

***​

McKitrick:
http://www.rossmckitrick.com/

 

[mercury14]

Richard Muller is still trying to figure out what he believes. He does believe in promoting Richard Muller.


http://youtu.be/qCK11ZssUI4





McKitrick:
http://www.rossmckitrick.com/

Yeah we're better off leaving it to your "real" climate skeptics. Like your accountant or the rest of your frauds who are paid to produce anti-science commentary.

 

[phrodeau]

And it’s possible that we are currently no warmer than we were a thousand years ago, during the “Medieval Warm Period” or “Medieval Optimum,” an interval of warm conditions known from historical records and indirect evidence like tree rings.

It just might be possible, but the vast majority of the evidence shows that it is much warmer now than it was during the Medieval Warm Period.

 

[trysail]

Yeah we're better off leaving it to your "real" climate skeptics. Like your accountant or the rest of your frauds who are paid to produce anti-science commentary.

The paleoclimatological record confirms that much higher levels of CO2 did not produce a planetary hothouse. For the past half million years, temperature changes preceded CO2 levels. If CO2 was a major driver, temperatures would have risen indefinitely in a runaway greenhouse effect. They didn't. Either some unknown factor stops the runaway greenhouse effect or CO2 is a minor force. In either case, CO2 is trivial.

“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.”

-Richard H. Lindzen, Ph.D.
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology
Massachusetts Institute of Technology​

 

[mercury14]

The paleoclimatological record confirms that much higher levels of CO2 did not produce a planetary hothouse. For the past half million years, temperature changes preceded CO2 levels. If CO2 was a major driver, temperatures would have risen indefinitely in a runaway greenhouse effect. They didn't. Either some unknown factor stops the runaway greenhouse effect or CO2 is a minor force. In either case, CO2 is trivial.

Not sure how this justifies you using accountants and paid phonies as climatology sources.

 

[trysail]

Not sure how this justifies you using accountants and paid phonies as climatology sources.

Yeah, right.

Lindzen, Curry, Dyson, Happer, Giaever,...

The list is long. You really ought to do some homework; you're boring.

 

[trysail]

LOL

Another unqualified commenter...

It is the overconfidence of “conventional” climate scientists that I always find so astonishing. It doesn’t take long looking at climate to work out that it’s really complicated, and probably not that well understood.

-Jonathan Jones, Ph.D.
Professor of Physics
Brasenose College
Oxford University

http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/27/candid-comments-from-global-warming-scientists/#comment-128550

​