re: #78 Charles

Those are the other three allegations as referenced here. That’s why the New Scientist piece states “all but cleared”:

The report is not clear about whether Mann’s behaviour has harmed the public trust in science. It cites Penn State’s official ethical standards, which says faculty have an obligation to boost maintain high ethical standards in order to foster public trust in science. It then goes on to discuss the fall-out from the email leak which, it says, may have polarised the public into two camps: one which believes the leak undermines climate science and another which does not.

“After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee could not make a definitive finding whether there exists any evidence to substantiate that Dr. Mann did engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that deviated from accepted practices within the academic community,” reads the report. This final point will now be at the centre of a further investigation.

. This could be simply dotting i’s and crossing t’s, but this one issue is being investigated further.