Those evil Republicans running Harrisburg cut funding for the wealthy state-affiliated colleges and, lo and behold, Penn State just announced an in-state tuition hike of 4.9 percent.
Just proves how much Republicans hate education, right?
Charles Mitchell of Commonwealth Foundation points out that this year’s increase is the smallest — by far — in a decade being just a tad over half of the school’s average 8.4 percent annual gouge of young persons and their families since 2001.
A little whitewash and the Pennsylvania taxpayer connection to Climategate has disappeared. At least that’s what the Penn State University administrators are hoping.
Penn State, which uses state appropriations for about 10 percent of its $2.5 billion budget, cleared Dr. Michael Mann of any scientific misconduct relating to the scandal.
Mann heads the university’s Earth System Science Center.
Climategate occurred when emails were leaked last November from the University of East Anglia’s Hadley Climatic Research Centre in the United Kingdom that showed leading climate researchers to have played tricks with data and conspired to stifle dissenters regardingthe global warming catastrophe story.
Mann was one of those tricksters most notably by leaving out data points in his infamous “hockey stick” graph which was widely claimed to have proved that earth temperatures were drastically increasing. The graph is something that has been scaring children, Oprah viewers and Democrats for a decade.
Anyway, Penn State, touching up the spots it missed in February , has found Mann did nothing wrong. The reasons it cited for coming to this conclusion were — what you are about to read is not a joke remember — “This level of success in proposing research, and obtaining funding to conduct it,clearly places Mann among the most respected scientists in his field” and”Had Dr. Mann’s conduct been outside the range of accepted practices, it would have been impossible for him to receive so many awards”
The whistleblower stands to get $15 million — 30 percent of the $50 million in misused grants.
The center’s director is Michael Mann who is at the heart of the scandal in which leading researchers were found to have destroyed data, publicized conclusions knowingly disregarding facts and marginalized critics using unsavory means to convince the world man-made emissions were causing the world to catastrophically warm.
Greetings and best wishes for a prosperous New Year.
After the recent whistleblower revelations of emails between climate
researchers and data from the University of East Anglia’s Climate
Research Unit, there are on-going investigations into potential
fraudulent use of grant funds in Climate Research in the US. I am
assisting interested parties who may have details of fraud in climate
research to make contact with the proper authorities, and to share in
the rewards paid when the funds are recovered.
Whistleblower Rewards Program
The federal government has established vigorous programs to identify
and prosecute fraudulent grant applications and administration. The US
Department of Justice (DOJ) administers the False Claims Act. It
allows rewards for those who come forward with details of grant fraud
to share in the recovery of federal funds. This reward can be as much
as 30% of the total amount reclaimed. The program is almost completely
reliant on insiders to report their knowledge of the fraud in their
Attorney Literally “Wrote the Book” on Fraud Recovery Lawsuits
Joel Hesch, Esq., of Hesch and Associates, literally wrote the book on
how to report federal fraud. He has an extensive background in
representing whistleblowers in all types of federal funding fraud
cases, including Educational/ Research Grant Fraud. According to Mr
Hesch: “Many institutions receive grants, whether for research or
educational purposes. When they lie to get the grant or keep the grant
or if they use the funds for purposes outside the grant, they are
liable under the DOJ program. There have been many grant cases brought
by whistleblowers. ”
If you know of anyone who might have details about fraudulent
statements or actions by recipients of federal grant funds for climate
research, please have them contact me immediately at the below email or
cell phone. Alternatively, they may also contact Mr Hersch directly,
and let him know that they were referred by me. All communications are
completely confidential. They may want to consider using a third party
email service (Yahoo, Hotmail, or other) instead of work email to
30% of $50 million is more than $12 million. Ask your friends to do the right thing, and be rewarded for doing it.
Our country, and in fact, the entire world is counting on someone to
stand up and tell the truth about climate research. The effects of
moving forward with taxes and policies based on fraudulent science
could potentially cripple the US economy and cost lives and jobs for
Katrina Anderson at the Commonwealth Foundation is reporting among those whose discrediting emails have been found in the hacked documents from the Britain’s Hadley Climatic Research Centre is Penn State’s director of Earth System Science Center, Michael E. Mann.
The documents show that top researchers from around the world fudged data indicating that the world was dramatically warming.
Austin Scott Ghost Of Duke At PSU? — Former Nittany Lion tailback Austin Scott is suing Centre County, Penn State, District Attorney Michael Madeira, former assistant district attorney Lance Marshall, six Penn State police employees and Scott’s accuser regarding his 2007 rape arrest which resulted in his being suspended from the team.
The charges were dropped as the case was about to go to trial when the judge ruled the defense could present to the jury the accuser falsely accused a man of rape four years earlier.
The accuser’s name was not mentioned in reports of the story in the Allentown Morning Call or the Centre Daily Times.
Scott claims unlawful arrest, malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, government liability and conspiracy and says the case destroyed his NFL career.
Scott’s attorney, John Karoly, says the law enforcement failed to make a reasonable effort to exclude unfounded allegations.
One difference between this case and the 2006 Duke lacrosse travesty is that Scott is black and his accuser is white, which might explain why faculty did not take out advertisements practically demanding his conviction.