Årets grovis? Penn State kjører etikkseminar! For Michael Mann?!

[Telehiv]

Dette er vel egentlig for humorspaltene, men Penn State University - Michael Manns eget hvitvaskerreir - vil bruke Durban til å fortelle hvilken kriminalitet kritiske klimarøster representerer:

Nov 29, 2011

Penn State's special course on ethics at Durban for UN - calling skepticicm a crime against humanity

Dear Attendees of COP-17:

On Tuesday, November 29th, in a seminar organized by Penn State University and the University of Washington on the ethical dimensions of climate change join us to look at two issues.

One, an ethical analysis of the climate change disinformation campaign. We will examine whether this is a new kind of crime against humanity?

Second, we will look at the piratical significance for negotiations in Durban if climate change is understood to create human rights violations.

Tuesday, November 29th, 1PM - 5PM,The University of Kwazulu-Natal,Howard College Campus Howard College Lecture Theater

Donald A. Brown
Associate Professor Environmental Ethics, Science, and Law,
Director,Collaborative Program on Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change, Rock Ethics Institute,
Penn State University
126 Willard,
University Park, Pa, 16802
717-802-1009 (cell); 814-865-3371 (office)
dab57@psu.edu

[Telehiv]

Watts Up har et sterkt kommentarinnlegg rundt denne saken:

Open letter to Dr. Erickson, President of Penn State University

Posted on December 1, 2011by Anthony Watts


(Reader Reed Coray submits this letter)

I have to admire Penn State's chutzpah. Smack dab in the middle of one of the biggest ethical scandals in recent collegiate history, Penn State schedules an "ethics seminar" entitled "An Ethical Critique of the Climate Science Disinformation Campaign" (Tuesday, 29 November 2011, Donald A. Brown, Associate Professor Environmental Ethics, Science, and Law, Director, Collaborative Program on Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change, Rock Ethics Institute, Penn State University).

The seminar title is ambiguous in that it doesn't define "disinformation." Disinformation could mean either/both (a) the information put out by Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) proponents (who collectively are referred to as the "team") or (b) the information put out by AGW skeptics (who collectively are referred to as "deniers").

If the seminar addressed the former, then I applaud Penn State. If, however, as I believe to be the case, the seminar addressed the latter, then the phrase "You've got to be kidding" best characterizes my initial reaction.

Has anyone in Penn State's "Ethics Department" read any of the Climategate 1 E‑mails (made public in late 2009) much less read any of the recently released Climategate 2 E‑mails? Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State's faculty is one of the principal Climategate 1 and Climategate 2 E-mail correspondents. Any, and I mean any, reasonable reading of some of Dr. Mann's Climategate 1 and Climategate 2 E-mails would cause the reader to question Dr. Mann's ethics. Even Penn State's administration held that opinion as shown by the fact that when the Climategate 1 E‑mails became public, Penn State held an internal investigation to determine if Dr. Mann's behavior violated Penn State's ethical canons. As I recall, the results of that investigation were that although Dr. Mann's behavior might not have been above reproach, his behavior was consistent with Penn State's high ethical standards.

When I read Penn State's ruling, I concluded that Penn State's definition of high ethical standards doesn't agree with my definition. You can believe Dr. Mann's behavior as represented by the Climategate 1 E‑mails and Penn State's subsequent investigation into Dr. Mann's behavior are both in accordance with the highest ethical standards; I'll believe what I want to believe.

Fast forward to November 2011–(a) allegations of sexual misconduct during his tenure at Penn State are made against Jerry Sandusky, (b) a portion of Penn State's response to those allegations becomes public, and (c) additional "team" E-mails (the Climategate 2 E‑mails) are made public. Items (a) and (b) have no direct bearing on the contents of Dr. Brown's "ethics seminar", but they do have relevance to the timing of Dr. Brown's seminar and to Penn State's definition and practice of "high ethical standards." Item (c) has direct relevance to the seminar topic.

Independent of the science of global warming, in my opinion the behaviors of Dr. Mann and many other "team" members as revealed in the Climategate 1 and Climategate 2 E‑mails reeks of at best pettiness and at worst a coordinated effort to suppress in the "peer-reviewed" literature opposing scientific points of view. Refutation of opposing scientific viewpoints is a normal part of the scientific process; suppression of those viewpoints is not. Penn State may consider attempts to suppress opposing scientific viewpoints as being "highly ethical," I and many others don't.

As evidenced by your television ads where a chorus proudly proclaims "We are Penn State," you are obviously proud of your university. If you want the general public to believe such pride is deserved, try holding fewer "global warming ethics seminars" and start behaving in a highly ethical manner. You may believe Dr. Mann's Climategate 1 E-mails and Penn State's assessment of those E‑mails are both consistent with "highly ethical principles," but if so I believe you are in the minority.

I would characterize Penn State's assessment of Dr. Mann's actions as being more consistent with the principle of "keep global warming study funds flowing into Penn State" than being consistent with "highly ethical principles of science." Bottom line, you want respect, earn it, don't proclaim it.

Thank you for your time,

Reed Coray


Og folk reagerer så det dundrer på dette røver-universitets frekkheter:

Responses to Open letter to Dr. Erickson, President of Penn State University


misterjohnqpublic says:

December 1, 2011 at 5:39 am


Penn State culture of coverup:

a) Michael Mann's hide the decline
b) the Penn State Climategate Whitewash Committee
c) the Administration's "look the other way" treatment of Sandusky

Penn State may have become the most infamous and unethical college in the USA.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/01/open-letter-to-dr-erickson-president-of-penn-state-university/#more-52337

[Jostemikk]

Det er vel snakk om et universitet med et særdeles abstrakt forhold til sannheten. Lurer på om det sier en del om de som søker seg dit?

[Ewer Gladblakk.]

Penn State's special course on ethics at Durban for UN - calling skepticicm a crime against humanity

Modig tematittel i fra (helst) trygge omgivelser detta...og svartmaling av andre og kansje like godkjente fagfeller fra andre vel så dokumenterte, ivertfall utenom det vitenskaplige tunellsynet, er jo helst det!

[Amatør1]

Saken under handler om etikk i amerikansk fotball, men debatten går høyt om Penn State's håndtering av denne saken har en parallell til Penn State's håndtering av Michael Manns eskapader.


Harde straffer til Penn State etter overgrepsskandale

"60 millioner dollar

Mandag ble det kjent at Penn State Universitys program for amerikansk fotball har blitt ilagt massive 60 millioner dollar (om lag 366 millioner norske kroner) i bøter."

[Amatør1]

Dere kjenner til at skeptikere til stadighet av alarmister beskyldes for
- å true med saksøking
- å være finansiert av "big oil"
- å stå i ledtog med tobakksindustrien

ikke sant?

Ok, hva med dette: Michael Mann har jo sin fulle hyre med å true med saksøking av bl.a. Tim Ball og nylig denne historien: Dr. Michael Mann invokes the Streisand effect

Til å hjelpe seg, benytter Mann denne advokaten, John B. Williams, fra advokatfirmaet Cozen O'connor

Advokatfirmaet skriver om Williams (uthevelser og linker lagt inn av meg):

"Advertising Litigation — John has significant experience in all types of advertising litigation, including cases brought by the Federal Trade Commission, cases brought by the state attorneys general, consumer class actions, and private Lanham Act litigation. He successfully defended R.J. Reynolds in the commercial speech case filed by the Federal Trade Commission challenging the cartoon character, Joe Camel. He successfully defended Mobil Oil Corporation when seven state attorneys general, as well as the FTC, challenged Mobil's Hefty degradable bag claim. In related class action litigation, John was responsible for obtaining a seminal decision in the area of advertising law when the 3rd Circuit held that the RICO statute could not be used to pursue false advertising claims. In Lanham Act litigation, John has obtained a number of preliminary injunctions on behalf of numerous clients."


Joe Camel:


War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

[jarlgeir]

Sex-skandalen ved Penn State blir nå sammenlignet med Dr Manns klimaforskning stadig flere steder: Her er link til et av de saftigere oppslagene: http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/07/17/official-probe-shows-climategate-whitewash-link-to-sandusky-child-sex-case/