Religion - the Sandusky Scandal - Science - Uncommon Threads

by Barry Bozeman

Politics & Religion are touchy subjects when it comes to attempts at unity. That makes this entry a tricky one for my partners Ray & Eileen, along with other members of the FREEHdom Fighters. There are element to the Sandusky Scandal that are necessarily political when one of the key villains is embroiled in a campaign for Governor - a position that holds the key to future Board of Trustees appointments. We should be able to agree that having a Governor who favors Penn State would be a welcome change for all of us. That is the major thrust of this essay. How we might help defeat Corbett and earn the respect of the next Governor enough to gain his ear and the regard of his supporters through our support for his campaign.   

This lengthy essay incorporates some new yet ancient angles about the forces that shaped the Sandusky scandal into the Penn State scandal.There is a general agreement among Penn State people over the injustice done to Penn State and Joe Paterno among people who radically disagree over the politics, science, and religion. Ray and I could not disagree more on politics and climate science but we couldn't agree more on the injustice done to Penn State. 

Penn State is home to two prominent climate scientists who were defended by Graham Spanier in a meeting with Republican leaders in Harrisburg prior to Nov 2011. Those legislators wanted the scientists removed or they would reduce PSU funding. Did Spaniers defense of the scientists impact the actions of Tom Corbett that removed Graham when he and Joe Paterno would have been the most effective defense for Penn State? 

The following "Uncommon Threads" essay muses about connections that have not been explored. These connections may be evident to some and seem absurd to others. I have played them over in my mind for weeks before deciding to let you determine for yourselves if you too see the relevance. Did certain political interests see Graham Spanier and Penn State climate scientists as an impediment to their plans?  What role did religion play with Louis Freeh when he was hired to do harm to the credibility of your university by the accusations against it's President and culture? 

 If we all set aside political differences and support Wolf over Corbett can Penn Stater's earn the respect and confidence of the next Governor and in the process get a large number of Pennsylvanians to take a closer look at what Tom Corbett did to Penn State?  

Back in Nov of 2011 there was an overwhelming amount of information about the "Penn State" Scandal that led to the naming of this website as The "Second Mile Sandusky" Scandal, and it seems I missed something very important to understanding Louis Freeh along with another reason for Corbett to seek the ouster of Dr. Graham Spanier. 

We all know - or should know how this came to be known as the "PENN STATE" Scandal. The Board of Traitors led by John Surma as arranged by Tom Corbett decided to sell Penn State in the persons of Joe Paterno, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz (and later Graham Spanier) down the proverbial river. They accepted a Presentment now known to be a bald faced lie by Corbett/Kelly as unassailable truth. There are other acts of treason in history that rival Nov 9 2011 but few so clear cut and egregious as the BOARD OF TRAITORS capitulation and breach of fiduciary duty represented by that decision.

We came to learn why John Surma did it: THE SURMA VENDETTA. And none among us can find any valid reason why Surma should not have recused himself from that decision instead of leading the drive to dismiss Joe Paterno. 

We know about Tom Corbett's UNCOMMONLY COMPLETE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST and why Corbett and his appointees should have recused themselves or supported Spanier and Paterno as the two individuals who could have commanded enough respect to make the media and the public aware of the facts in the face of that bogus presentment and the media tsunami. 

We were even made fully aware of how Louis Freeh was inflicted on Penn State in just one week after that Nov 9, 2011 disaster. A mere 4 hours of interviews of only 2 candidates by  the CORBETT, SURMA, FRAZIER, TOMALIS & BALDWIN - UNCOMMONLY CLEAR CONFLICTS OF INTEREST were revealed here on SMSS. 

        WHAT I MISSED IN NOV. 2011.  

 I missed an article in ESQUIRE that wondered:  
What the choice of former FBI director, Opus Dei running buddy, and cutthroat careerist Louis Freeh to lead Penn State's investigation into itself as regards the Jerry Sandusky scandal would come to mean to the people involved. 
It all depends on two factors the writer mused:
1) How often Freeh's finely rehearsed performance-art public morality comes into play; and 2) What result will be best for Louis Freeh, secular saint and avenging angel.

As it has turned out Freeh based his entire finding on his self-serving moral superiority. He definitely had no evidence to support his conclusions. It was the "failed culture at Penn State" and an "omnipotent head football coach" indicted and skewered in the court of public opinion over a mere 2 email fragments mentioning "coach". The Esquire writer now seems downright prophetic with his observations. Freeh pocketed 8.2 million Penn State dollars for trashing the university as a failed culture without ever having to interview the key witnesses to the charges Freeh makes or the need to justify his results. Freeh was all moral outrage hat with no evidence cattle as Esquire points out: 
"Freeh has a long history of Opus Dei morality. He was the cilice around Bill Clinton's upper thigh because Freeh disapproved of a president having non-Vatican-endorsed sexy time with a young woman. Freeh's FBI railroaded Wen Ho Lee because Freeh was convinced that the Clintons played loose with national security secrets because of Chinese political contributions. Another charge with no basis in fact.
In 2005, Freeh wrote a book explaining how he, the righteous moralist Louis Freeh, stood alone against all enemies, foreign and domestic. He absolved the FBI of involvement in the framing not only of Lee, whom Freeh still believed to be guilty of espionage, but of Richard Jewell, the innocent man Freeh fingered as the 1996 Olympic Park bomber. Freeh claimed that what happened to Lee was the New York Times's fault, and that the FBI went after Jewell for the sake of thoroughness. Freeh was too busy pointing his moral finger at Jewell and Lee to keep an eye on his own FBI where US secrets were being sold to Soviets costing US billions". 
Freeh was perfect for the heavily Corbett influenced Special Investigation Task Force - an Opus Dei member out to eviscerate non-priest child molesters and redeem the moral standing of his Church in the wake of decades of priest pedophiles. Joe, Graham, Tim and Gary never had the chance for a fair unbiased investigation by this angry righteous Opus Dei scold. A PSU version of Tomas de Torquemada, Freeh would have preferred the rack and wheel ending with a burning stake.   

Freeh's investigation could not be his preferred inquisition but the report would be his sermon as avenging angel striking back against the priest pedophiles who besmirched the reputation of his church. Freeh could refocus national attention away from his church and on Penn State. No evidence is required in the case of child abuse. The allegations are as effective as any proof, particularly when the Attorney General and the Board of Trustees were not about to challenge his word. 

Corbett demanded that Freeh work with his Attorney General. This was never an "independent" investigation - it was designed from the start to reinforce the Presentment and the case of the Commonwealth.  Simply read the bottom paragraph in this email from Corbett's hand picked SITF member Ron Tomalis telling of the Governor's desire to have Freeh work hand in had with the Attorney General.  

"I talked with the Governor this afternoon re the Attorney General and our approach about having the outside firm talk directly with that office. He strongly agreed with the approach and added that he had already discussed the role of the committee with her........." 

It doesn't get more direct than that.  In fact it is amazing that such an email exists. Here the Governor's man on the SITF writes it down. The Governor is so involved with this case he is discussing the role of the so called "independent investigator" with the Attorney General  and having that "outside firm" work directly with her. Since when is it appropriate for a sitting Governor to plan the prosecution of cases with the Attorney General? 

Catholic Tom Corbett wanted Louis Freeh and he wanted Louis Freeh to work directly with his hand picked Attorney General. That should result in criminal charges of undue influence and impeachment.  Ron Tomalis was Corbett's hand picked Special Advisor on Education. A man with no experience in teaching who oversaw drastic cuts to public and higher education while championing school vouchers that benefited private (Catholic) schools. Tomalis as Vice Chair along with Chairman Ken Frazier arranged the selection of Opus Dei member Louis Freeh.  

Criticism of Opus Dei includes allegations of secretiveness, controversial recruiting methods, strict rules governing members, elitism and misogyny, and support of or participation in authoritarian right-wing governments, especially the Francoist Government of Spain until 1978. Mortification of the flesh practiced by some OD members is bizarre. Even within the Church, Opus Dei is criticized for seeking independence and influence and extremism.  

It is impossible to overstate the control exercised by Tom Corbett in the defamation of Joe Paterno and Graham Spanier - the two men most visible as the faces of Penn State University. Corbett set out to cut Penn State funding and get rid of President Spanier because:
1) Spanier was an effective voice for funding for Penn State
2) Corbett thought Spanier was supporting his opponent 
3) Corbett's fossil fuel industry supporters disliked Penn State climate scientists and 
4) Blaming Penn State diverted attention from Corbett supporters at The Second Mile.  

This Freeh OPUS DEI connection brings us to Rick Santorum. In 2002 Senator Santorum sponsored Jerry Sandusky for the honor of "Congressional Angel in Adoption,"  Even Santorum was fooled by Sandusky enough to sponsor the Second Mile founder 2 years after Joe Paterno parted company with him. Surely a US Senator has methods of vetting those chosen to receive such a high honor. Even with his connections in Pennsylvania nobody warned him that Sandusky might have exhibited questionable behavior? 

In 2012 fellow OPUS DEI member Louis Freeh's high minded moralizing brought sanctions against the football program at Santorum's alma mater by denouncing the failure of Joe Paterno to stop a predator he had no authority to stop in 2001 when Sandusky was a Second Mile employee not under Joe's control. 

Santorum's alma mater Penn State was paying the price for Freeh's moral outrage. An irony that is hard to miss in the world of "family values" where a dedicated family man and "success with honor" coach was forced to bear the cross of Freeh's Opus Dei fervor. One can only imagine the internal agony suffered by Joe the short time between his public disgrace and death. This irony evidently failed to reach the rock solid mass between Freeh's ears when it's clear to all that Paterno lived the exemplary life of a family man of unimpeachable honor.   

Rick Santorum was one prominent PA politician in a position to offer support to Penn State and Joe Paterno. But this is all he could do for Joe and his Alma Mater:
 "Look, I pray and hope that he [PSU coach Joe Paterno] didn't do anything he shouldn't have done, but it certainly looks horrible for the university, horrible for the football program and obviously people were fired, should be fired.
It was Rick Santorum who chose to honor Sandusky in 2002. Joe was done with Jerry back in 1999, but Santorum couldn't manage to come to the defense of a man he knew was all about family values and "success with honor"? Was that because of this Opus Dei connection and a fear of being tainted by his award?  

The worst spy in American history was former FBI Soviet expert Robert Hanssen and Hanssen was not only Opus Dei, he attended Mass with Louis Freeh on the day of his arrest and was a member of the same church. St. Catherine of Great Falls, Virginia claims 3,400 parishioners. "Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and his wife attend Mass there with the head of the National Rifle Association, and former FBI director Louis Freeh. The church also suffered brief notoriety eleven years ago when FBI agent Robert Hanssen—then a member of the congregation—was arrested for selling intelligence to Russia. Santorum attended Mass with his family nearly every day."  

The movie THE BREACH is recommended for those of you who do not know about Robert Hanssen and the damage he caused the United States while working under Louis Freeh for years. 

Freeh and Santorum belong to Opus Dei and even attend the same church. What effect did that have on Rick Santorum's failure to stand up for his alma mater and Joe Paterno against Tom Corbett and Louis Freeh? What effect did the pedophile priest scandal have on Louis Freeh and his fervor for accusing Joe Paterno and Penn State? It is not easy to find connections between Opus Dei and The Second Mile - we have to wonder if there were any. Many in Pennsylvania are Catholic so it's not unusual to see Corbett, Freeh, Santorum, and Paterno all a part of the same church. 

Joe Paterno is an iconic family man and molder of young men in his care as a coach and it's difficult to understand why Freeh felt compelled to attack him so viciously as a fellow Catholic based on such flimsy "evidence" But in order to detach the pedophile tag from priests in his church and tie it  to Penn State, Joe had to be involved along with Graham Spanier because they were the most identifiable faces of Penn State. Freeh owed his selection to Corbett through Ron Tomalis - he had to earn that 8.2 million by reinforcing the Corbett case against Penn State. 


The apparent conflicts between science and religion are well known. It is not my purpose to dismiss the importance of either and I am not attacking religious people or Catholics since I can believe in God and trust science.
I did not draw the connections made in the references below but I find the parallels to be compelling and intriguing. Of interest to every Pennsylvanian is the current campaign for Governor. The result is of even more importance to Penn State since the make up of the Board of Trustees and a potential reversal of the narrative concerning the Freeh Fiction becomes possible with Corbett's defeat. 

First we have to accept that Climate Change is part of this race between Wolf and Corbett.  
HARRISBURG (AP) — The fall campaign for Pennsylvania governor is likely to cost tens of millions of dollars, and some of that could be spent as part of an effort to defeat Gov. Tom Corbett over the Republican's position on climate change. Corbett's campaign manager Mike Barley said the plan by an environmentalist billionaire, Tom Steyer, to try to defeat him is a case of one "super-wealthy, well-connected political insider" supporting another. Wolf campaign spokesman Jeff Sheridan responded that it is laughable for Corbett to call anyone else a well-connected political insider after he took huge campaign donations from oil and gas interests. Directors of the super PAC NextGen Climate Action, founded by Steyer, said they plan to raise $100 million to make global warming a major campaign issue and attack Republicans, including Corbett, running for U.S. Senate or governor in seven states. Steyer, a longtime Democratic donor, is a retired investor and donated $50 million. Corbett's campaign said the governor understands that climate change is happening and that scientific literature points to a human role in it
Politics being as polarizing as they are may make it difficult for some of the new Alumni Trustees to reach out to Corbett's opponent with support. But what if Wolf were to take on Corbett for his conflict of interest in the 11/9 meeting that led to Joe Paterno and Graham Spanier being sidelined when they alone could have cast serious doubt on the narrative about a Penn State cover up. At minimum it would compel the media to revisit the Freeh Report and understand the fictional moralizing for what it really is. That may be something that Republican BoT members would find important enough to support the Democrat this time. If we could just get Wolf's campaign people to read this entry and a half dozen more - like those listed at the top of this post - it would go a long way in introducing Wolf to the reality of what happened at Penn State. 

Climate Change and the Sandusky Scandal as described by the Freeh Fiction are connected because Penn State has some of the most prominent climate scientists in the country. 

Penn Stater's should be proud of  Dr.. Richard Alley, who received the Nobel Prize for work on climate change Dr.Alley is a Penn State professor, environmental scientist, PBS host, book author, polar ice expert, bicycle enthusiast, geologist, Nobel Prize winner, Johnny Cash impersonator, former oil company employee, and—according to The New York Times’ Andy Revkin—a “cross between Woody Allen and Carl Sagan.” (without Woody's baggage) 

Richard is an Evan Pugh Professor of Geosciences in Penn State's College of Earth and Mineral Sciences. His research interests focus on glaciology, sea level change and abrupt climate change, and he frequently discusses earth sciences on major media outlets, including NPR, BBC and PBS. He is widely credited with showing that the earth has experienced abrupt climate change in the past—and likely will again, based on his meticulous study of ice cores from Greenland and West Antarctica.

Graham Spanier went to Harrisburg to defend Penn State's climate scientists to legislators who threatened to reduce funding for Penn State if they were not removed. We are left to wonder what effect this may have had on Corbett's actions to remove Dr. Spanier from the PSU Presidency. Corbett fought with Spanier over PSU funding and Corbett thought Spanier was supporting his opponent in the 2010 race. Corbett was the beneficiary of much fossil fuel support along with TSM support, so it's not much of a leap to see the defense of these scientists as another strike against Graham Spanier on Corbett's scorecard. 

When I read articles like this one from The American Thinker I have to wonder what Graham Spanier's defense of the faculty at Penn State might have done to incur the wrath of Corbett and PA legislators who wanted to de-fund Penn State. 
COMMON THREADS - CLIMATEGATE and the SANDUSKY SCANDAL  In this particular article the bogus "climategate' from the bungled "hockey stick debunking" is raised to compare Graham Spanier's defense of Professor Mann with the Freeh Fiction on a cover-up for Sandusky. 

Professor Mann was cleared by Penn State of any violations in the bogus "Climategate" blowup. And taking it further Mann has sued the people who attempted his defamation much as Graham Spanier has gone on the attack suing Louis Freeh and his Freeh Fiction for defamation.  

A Win for the Climate Scientist Who Skeptics Compared to Jerry Sandusky
In 2012 after writers for National Review and a conservative think tank accused him of fraud and compared him to serial child molester Jerry Sandusky—climate scientist Michael Mann took the bold step of filing a defamation suit. The defendants moved to have the case thrown out, citing a Washington, DC, law that shields journalists from frivolous litigation. But on Wednesday, DC Superior Court Judge Frederick Weisberg rejected the motion, opening the way for a trial.Although public figures like Mann have to clear a high bar to prove defamation, Weisberg argued that the scientist's complaint may pass the test. And he brushed aside the defendants' claims that the fraud allegations were "pure opinion," which is protected by the First Amendment:
Accusing a scientist of conducting his research fraudulently, manipulating his data to achieve a predetermined or political outcome, or purposefully distorting the scientific truth are factual allegations. They go to the heart of scientific integrity. They can be proven true or false. If false, they are defamatory. If made with actual malice, they are actionable. 
Weisberg's order is just the latest in a string of setbacks that have left the climate change skeptics' case in disarray. Earlier this month, Steptoe & Johnson, the law firm representing National Review and its writer, Mark Steyn, withdrew as Steyn's counsel. According to two sources with inside knowledge, it also plans to drop National Review as a client.
JUNE 12, 2014  SIX THINGS MICHAEL MANN WANTS YOU TO KNOW ABOUT THE SCIENCE OF GLOBAL WARMING  shows us that Dr. Mann remains one of the most visible and oft quoted of climate scientists.

Penn State has produced a number of very notable Climate Scientists like Dr Richard Somerville. The Distinguished Professor Emeritus and Research Professor at the Scripps Oceanography Institute in San Diego. His 60 minute lecture in the addendum below this article is another example of Penn State excellence. 

I have not drawn these parallels between Sandusky and the Penn State climate scientists. That comparison was fostered by the National Review and conservative thinktanks. Those people manipulated information just like Louis Freeh, by taking email fragments out of context from 5 of 480 scientists to claim that temperature measurements were a fraudulent manipulation of data. Freeh used a few email fragments without context out of some 3.5 million documents to accuse Joe Paterno and Graham Spanier of a cover up. Freeh never interviewed the principals he claimed were involved in a "cover-up". The sharpest critic of Michael Mann relied on plagiarized material.  The tactics are too similar to ignore. 

Subsequent observations and data have proved Michael Mann's temperature model correct and close review of the Freeh Report reveals the absurdity of the "Spanier cover up" accusations. Mann's and Spanier's defamation suits move forward but it's almost impossible to put those malicious attacks back in the foul sewers from whence they came because 'defamation' is so difficult a case in the land of free (no matter how foul) speech.

The Mann = Sandusky attack is another example of science - in the form of one Nobel Prize winner and fellow prominent Penn State faculty member and their work on Climate Science on one hand facing extreme religious views represented by Louis Freeh - Rick Santorum - Tom Corbett and Opus Dei on the on the other. As we know Santorum is an outspoken Climate Denier who considers Climate Science a HOAX
Biblical literalist Creationists claim the scientifically accurate 4.5 billion year old Earth is a Hoax because the Bible shows the Earth to be around 6,000 years old. That "belief" is far more prevalent in southern, high-school or less educated over 65 evangelicals and almost completely disregarded by nonsectarian college graduates who understand the plethora of accurate dating methods and the science of evolution through natural selection.    

A University is the place for science and Dr Ally and Dr. Mann have brought credit to Penn State with their meticulous work in the field of climate science. 97% of climate scientists are in agreement with their positions based on their research. Of over 11,944 peer reviewed scientific papers less than 3% argue against anthropogenic (man made) climate change. But like all good scientists they maintain a skeptical nature. This is what the evidence available now suggests as they continue to add observations and data to their skillful models. To claim they have perpetrated "a HOAX" to fool everyone is a lot like claiming Joe Paterno would cover up for a pedophile. It just makes no sense. The Freeh conspiracy theory of a cover up at Penn State is quite like the theory that credentialed climate scientists and scientific groups around the globe have conspired to perpetrate the "hoax" of global warming. 


Our differences of opinion on the validity of anthropogenic global warming or climate change is not the debate for Penn State supporters of due process for Joe Paterno or Graham Spanier and Penn State. That issue is introduced in this campaign for Governor and it may have played a part in the attack on Graham Spanier by Tom Corbett. So how can those of you who do not support the views of climate scientists get the most out of your support for the opponent of Tom Corbett? 

In this situation the defeat of Tom Corbett and the repudiation of the Freeh Fiction should be something all Penn Staters can find worthwhile. Will we be able to set aside normal political preference and really get behind the Wolf campaign in a way that encourages Wolf to seek counsel from the elected Alumni Trustees on his appointments. The way this is done could help draw the attention of Wolf and his staff to the truth about what happened at Penn State and if that happens soon enough it might become a campaign issue that spotlights Corbett's conflicts of interest and Freeh's obvious fiction. Shining the light of what we now know on about the Freeh Fiction could change a lot of minds in Pennsylvania and free Penn State from the Freeh stigma. That is my hope.  

 72% of Pennsylvanians favor greenhouse gas emission limits on coal fired plants.  If Wolf supporters take a fresh look at the Freeh Fiction that would be a huge step in the right direction. This may appear to be an unfortunate nexus of events for some Republicans among you. But Wolf's democratic supporters and climate science supporters are most likely to take Penn States side against Corbett and Freeh if Wolf decides to make Corbett's conflicts of interest a part of his campaign. That is what could lead the media to review the Freeh Fiction and Corbett's role despite a long reluctance. 

In a nationwide poll in 2012, 87 percent of registered Democrats said they believed that global warming was happening, compared with 53 percent of Republicans. As expected, there were higher numbers of Democrats versus Republicans, but the bottom line: Even a majority of Republicans are in tune with doing something about carbon emissions. It seems obvious that more Pennsylvanians might be willing to take a fresh look at what happened at Penn State with Louis Freeh if Wolf were to attack Corbett's conflcts of interest and his role in protecting TSM while unfairly denying Joe Paterno due process. If every Pennsylvanian who supports reduction of carbon emissions were to support a review and rethinking of the Freeh Fiction it would go a long way to restoring the reputation of Penn State in the Commonwealth. 

Corbett is vulnerable on climate science and everyone knows it is much easier to get the ear of a political candidate during the campaign than once he has assumed office. So now is the time to reach out to Wolf to assist his campaign and show him Corbett's plan to hire Freeh and have him work with the OAG to validate charges in the presentments - not to be an independent investigator. Wolf should be made aware of the parallels that exist between the Spanier and Mann defamation suits. and the conspiracy theories promoted by Freeh and the climate deniers. A sitting Governor who knows how Corbett used Freeh would be a great benefit,  a candidate that uses that information in the campaign could make a huge difference in the minds of his supporters in PA. 

So it appears by virtue of available polls at this early date that Tom Corbett is done, we can never be certain, and that's not really the point.  Engaging Candidate Wolf on the subject of Penn State's Board of Trustees appointments is a worthwhile endeavor.  This is a point where the Corbett supporting old guard is vulnerable, and ensuring that Wolf hears from the Alumni Trustees in order to give him the true picture of what Freeh and Corbett did to defame your alma mater could make a huge difference in the public's perception of Penn State and Joe Paterno. 

NOTE: Although I would be glad to debate climate science this is not the place for that debate. It is a part of this entry because of the connection with the Wolf campaign and Corbett's actions against Penn State. I'm not trying to get anyone to change their minds on the science. The aim is to show how I think Penn State can gain more support from a broader spectrum of Pennsylvanians in working against Cobett and exposing his conflicts of interest during the current campaign. 

Recommended Reading: 
MIchael Mann's Lawsuit vs National Review and Competitive Enterprise Institute 

PENN STATE Graduate Dr Richard Somerville - Video 

Climate Scientist's lawsuit could wipe out Conservative National Review Magazine 

Steyn quoted “paid anti-climate science operative Rand Simberg — an employee of the right-wing think tank the Competitive Enterprise Institute — who compared Mann to Penn State’s convicted child molester Jerry Sandusky. Mann, Simberg said, is “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data.”
Setting the Record Straight on Misleading Claims about Michael Mann 
There are many elements in the deniers inquisition of selected climate scientists. Their tactics are confusion and misrepresentation. If there are 20 studies that offer the same conclusion the deniers pick the one with the least certainty and ignore the continued observations and measurements that further strengthen the model. It's obnoxious and misleading. The point is to confuse and mislead - rather than inform and enlighten. 
The Hockey Stick and Climate Wars by Michael Mann
The global warming denial machine's predatory "Serengeti strategy" of singling out individual scientists and scientific findings for attack has been applied relentlessly to several leading climate scientists, none more so than Mann and the iconic "hockey stick" graph from paleoclimate research published in 1998. That path-breaking work found that warming in the late 20th century was unprecedented over the last millennium. Since then, a growing and diverse body of painstaking paleoclimate research has produced multiple studies that essentially confirm and strengthen that early finding.  

Climate Scientist Compared to Jerry Sandusky, Files Libel Suit

Mann's paper, as a first attempt at this sort of reconstruction, attracted some criticism on scientific grounds. But it also attracted no end of non-scientific vitriol because it was mistakenly considered to be so central to the entire argument about climate change. Eventually, it even became the subject of Congressional hearings where climate science as a field was accused of being sloppy with statistics and too insular to notice. But the report that accused climate scientists of helping each other through peer review turned out to have been heavily plagiarized (and, ironically, was pushed into publication by a friendly editor). The National Academies of Science analyzed how the field had progressed since Mann's publication, and found that multiple studies, using improved methods, had now replicated the hockey stick result.

And finally the IRONY 

Climate Science Critic Sees Paper Retracted Due to Plagiarism

The so-called "hockey stick" plot of recent climate, in which recent temperatures appear as a sudden and anomalous rise after a thousand years of relative stability, has become a bit of an icon for climate change. Even though it's rather secondary to the concerns about rising greenhouse gas levels—CO2would be a concern even if we were limited to the 150 years of instrument records—the hockey stick attracted so much attention that, in 2006, it was the subject of Congressional hearings. Now, it appears that the sharpest critic of climate scientists at those hearings relied on plagiarized material to prepare his report.

And Now a few words from the other side for fairness and balance