[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Whitney Webb: Foreign Intelligence Affiliated CTI League Poses Major National Security Risk

Paul Joseph Watson: What Fresh Hell Is This?

Watch: 50 Kids Loot 7-Eleven In Beverly Hills For Candy & Snacks

"No Americans": Insider Of Alleged Trafficking Network Reveals How Migrants Ended Up At Charleroi, PA Factory

Ford scraps its SUV electric vehicle; the US consumer decides what should be produced, not the Government

The Doctor is In the House [Two and a half hours early?]

Trump Walks Into Gun Store & The Owner Says This... His Reaction Gets Everyone Talking!

Here’s How Explosive—and Short-Lived—Silver Spikes Have Been

This Popeyes Fired All the Blacks And Hired ALL Latinos

‘He’s setting us up’: Jewish leaders express alarm at Trump’s blaming Jews if he loses

Asia Not Nearly Gay Enough Yet, CNN Laments

Undecided Black Voters In Georgia Deliver Brutal Responses on Harris (VIDEO)

Biden-Harris Admin Sued For Records On Trans Surgeries On Minors

Rasmussen Poll Numbers: Kamala's 'Bounce' Didn't Faze Trump

Trump BREAKS Internet With Hysterical Ad TORCHING Kamala | 'She is For They/Them!'

45 Funny Cybertruck Memes So Good, Even Elon Might Crack A Smile

Possible Trump Rally Attack - Serious Injuries Reported

BULLETIN: ISRAEL IS ENTERING **** UKRAINE **** WAR ! Missile Defenses in Kiev !

ATF TO USE 2ND TRUMP ATTACK TO JUSTIFY NEW GUN CONTROL...

An EMP Attack on the U.S. Power Grids and Critical National Infrastructure

New York Residents Beg Trump to Come Back, Solve Out-of-Control Illegal Immigration

Chicago Teachers Confess They Were told to Give Illegals Passing Grades

Am I Racist? Reviewed by a BLACK MAN

Ukraine and Israel Following the Same Playbook, But Uncle Sam Doesn't Want to Play

"The Diddy indictment is PROTECTING the highest people in power" Ian Carroll

The White House just held its first cabinet meeting in almost a year. Guess who was running it.

The Democrats' War On America, Part One: What "Saving Our Democracy" Really Means

New York's MTA Proposes $65.4 Billion In Upgrades With Cash It Doesn't Have

More than 100 killed or missing as Sinaloa Cartel war rages in Mexico

New York state reports 1st human case of EEE in nearly a decade


Science/Tech
See other Science/Tech Articles

Title: ClimateGate's Michael Mann Received Stimulus Funds, Media Mum
Source: News Busters
URL Source: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s ... -funds-media-mum#ixzz0ceNXQk9e
Published: Jan 16, 2010
Author: Noel Sheppard
Post Date: 2010-01-16 13:18:50 by farmfriend
Ping List: *Agriculture-Environment*     Subscribe to *Agriculture-Environment*
Keywords: None
Views: 1726
Comments: 200

ClimateGate's Michael Mann Received Stimulus Funds, Media Mum

By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
January 14, 2010 - 09:44 ET

A scientist in the middle of the ClimateGate scandal received economic stimulus funds last June.

As NewsBusters reported on November 28, Penn State University is investigating Professor Michael Mann, the creator of the discredited "Hockey Stick Graph," for his involvement in an international attempt to exaggerate and manipulate climate data in order to advance the myth of manmade global warming.

According to the conservative think tank the National Center for Public Policy Research, Mann received $541,184 in economic stimulus funds last June to conduct climate change research.

With this in mind, NCPPR issued a press release Thursday asking for these funds to be returned:

In the face of rising unemployment and record-breaking deficits, policy experts at the National Center for Public Policy Research are criticizing the Obama Administration for awarding a half million dollar grant from the economic stimulus package to Penn State Professor Michael Mann, a key figure in the Climategate controversy.

"It's outrageous that economic stimulus money is being used to support research conducted by Michael Mann at the very time he’s under investigation by Penn State and is one of the key figures in the international Climategate scandal. Penn State should immediately return these funds to the U.S. Treasury," said Tom Borelli, Ph.D., director of the National Center's Free Enterprise Project.

Professor Mann is currently under investigation by Penn State University because of activities related to a closed circle of climate scientists who appear to have been engaged in agenda-driven science. Emails and documents mysteriously released from the previously-prestigious Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom revealed discussions of manipulation and destruction of research data, as well as efforts to interfere with the peer review process to stifle opposing views. The motivation underlying these efforts appears to be a coordinated strategy to support the belief that mankind's activities are causing global warming. [...] The $541,184 grant is for three years and was initiated in June 2009.

Potentially adding insult to injury, Penn State received additional stimulus funds to investigate the impact of climate change last week:

A nearly $1.9 million grant from the National Science Foundation is enabling a Penn State-led group of researchers to continue studies on the potential effects of climate change on the spread of infectious diseases, such as malaria and dengue. The grant is part of federal stimulus funding authorized under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

This grant appears to have nothing to do with Mann's department. However, given the high-profile the university is currently under as a result of his involvement in ClimateGate, it seems absurd that any federal funds involving climate change would be going to this school while it is investigating its chief proponent of this myth.

Maybe more importantly, why are economic stimulus funds being given to a university for scientific research in the first place, especially one with such political overtones?

As NCPPR noted in its release:

"It's no wonder that Obama's stimulus plan is failing to produce jobs. Taxpayer dollars aren't being used in the ways most likely to spur job creation. The stimulus was not sold to the public as a way to reward a loyalist in the climate change debate. Nor was the stimulus sold as a way to promote the Obama Administration's position on the global warming theory...As is often the case, political considerations corrupt the distribution of government funds," said Deneen Borelli, a fellow with the National Center's Project 21 black leadership network.

Despite the obviously controversial nature of this funding and its recipient, I can identify absolutely no media coverage concerning the matter.

I'm sure now that NCPPR has exposed this hypocrisy, press outlets across the fruited plain will be aggressively investigating economic stimulus grants to Mann and others involved in the ClimateGate scandal in order to inform the public about how their tax dollars are being spent.

Of course, I'm not holding my breath. Subscribe to *Agriculture-Environment*

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 12.

#1. To: farmfriend (#0)

ClimateGate's Michael Mann Received Stimulus Funds, Media Mum

I see allegations, but no proof.

There are embedded links in the article but in following them, no proof of that grant is presented. I won't just take someones word for it.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/PR-Michael_Mann_Money_011410.html mentions it too, and it was credited as a source in this article. No proof though.

PSUSA  posted on  2010-01-16   13:47:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: PSUSA, farmfriend (#1)

And what motive would they have to lie about something that can be easily cross checked? If the grant was authorized and given it is a matter of public record. Methinks thou doth protest too much and in the wrong way for your protest to be credible. If you were trying to discredit the article more effective would have been to call them bad names not attack them on a point their adversaries could easily validate and refute if false.

Original_Intent  posted on  2010-01-16   13:53:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Original_Intent (#2)

That's funny! I guess I struck a nerve???

nd what motive would they have to lie about something that can be easily cross checked?

Did I say they lied? No.

If it is so easy to cross check, then why didnt they cross check it in the article? YOU say it's easy. Why wasnt something SOOOO EASY to do, done?

Methinks thou doth protest too much and in the wrong way for your protest to be credible.

I protest nothing but the lack of proof presented. An huge allegation was made in the title(!) and it wasn't backed up. Why?

If you were trying to discredit the article more effective would have been to call them bad names not attack them on a point their adversaries could easily validate and refute if false.

I didnt try and discredit the article. It discredited itself. Just because it goes along with what you and I believe to be true doesn't make it so.

Is it true? Who knows. Maybe it is. You sure can't tell from that article. They posted links to everything put their allegation about the grant. Why did they omit that?

PSUSA  posted on  2010-01-16   15:41:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: PSUSA (#5)

Methinks thou doth protest too much and in the wrong way for your protest to be credible.

I protest nothing but the lack of proof presented. An huge allegation was made in the title(!) and it wasn't backed up. Why?

If the basis was not factual you would not have both a Press Release and seperate news article.

If you really wanted to know and not just find a point upon which to cavil you would research it. I am not your librarian and I don't vouch for the article, but do find it to be, on the face of it, credible. The parties involved, as I pointed out already, would be highly unlikely to make such a statement if there were not records supporting it. As well we know the far left is deeply entranced by "the sky is falling" scenarios, and always the wrong ones, as there are legitimate environmental issues. So, given the government's propensity for funding politically motivated science, such as glowbull warming I find it highly credible that such a grant was given to a Professor now under investigation for his academic dishonesty. However, if I was really concerned about it I would do the research but see no need to at this point, and frankly my dear I don't give a damn. At this juncture Glowbull Warming is known to be a scam contradicted by various evidences all in the public domain. This clearly is simply a further move to embarrass the good doctor and Kommissar Oh'bummer - both badly in need of it.

Original_Intent  posted on  2010-01-16   17:14:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 12.

#16. To: Original_Intent (#12)

If you really wanted to know and not just find a point upon which to cavil you would research it.

It is not up to me to research anything. The article made a charge, but didn't provide the proof that is supposedly sooooo easy to provide. It is their job to do the research since he wrote the fucking article, not me.

I am not your librarian and I don't vouch for the article, but do find it to be, on the face of it, credible.

I did not ask you to be my librarian.

How's that for a red herring? YOu intentionally distract by making another baseless charge.

If the basis was not factual you would not have both a Press Release and seperate news article.

You're kidding, right? ANYONE can make a press release. ANYONE can write an article. Where is the proof that he got that grant?

As well we know the far left is deeply entranced by "the sky is falling" scenarios, and always the wrong ones, as there are legitimate environmental issues. So, given the government's propensity for funding politically motivated science, such as glowbull warming I find it highly credible that such a grant was given to a Professor now under investigation for his academic dishonesty.

In other words, you are stating that you believe it because of what was done in the past. We all do that. Me included. But that does not mean he got that grant. That is what the article title was all about, and no proof was given. Evidently he wrote that headline, or his editor did, as a way to get attention for that article, hoping that the reader will overlook that lack of proof in the article.

At this juncture Glowbull Warming is known to be a scam contradicted by various evidences all in the public domain. This clearly is simply a further move to embarrass the good doctor and Kommissar Oh'bummer - both badly in need of it.

If you are going to intentionally embarrass someone, make sure it is for something they did, or you will be the one embarrassed.

Global warming is crap. I dont need a suspect article to confirm what I already know (or believe, as the case may be).

Did he get that grant? Maybe he did. Maybe he didn't. I really don't know. But you just stated that you will overlook that technicality in order to "embarrass" someone. Do you need a bunch of possible lies to support what you say you believe?

PSUSA  posted on  2010-01-16 17:44:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 12.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]