re: #43 lawhawk

re: Climategate emails: Penn State is advancing an investigation into whether Michael Mann violated certain academic standards:

The profession has to do a better job of policing itself and not opening itself up to claims of coverups and other malfeasance, which allow peoples’ attention to move away from the fact that emissions are increasing and that they can have negative consequences.

Then again, the media and those quoted in stories can’t jump on the global warming bandwagon at every turn either - such as claiming that because there’s insufficient snow in Vancouver it’s a sign of global warming. That’s not any different than a report noting that parts of the NE US have seen several times their average snowfall thus far this season and saying that it’s just weather. Would help to be consistent.

Uh, you missed something here. The initial investigation actually cleared Michael Mann of any misconduct.

US ‘climategate’ scientist all but cleared of misconduct - environment - 03 February 2010 - New Scientist

The internal enquiry has found that Mann did not “participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data”. For the full report, click here (pdf).

Nor did he “delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data” relating to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2007 report. One email that has received much media attention was sent to Mann by Phil Jones, then director of the UEA’s Climatic Research Centre, on 29 May 2008. It asked Mann to delete some emails regarding the 2007 IPCC report.

In the months since the email leak, Mann has repeatedly said that he did not heed to Jones’ request. Penn State’s enquiry confirmed this.

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 is very much the vindication I expected since I am confident I have done nothing wrong,” Mann told New Scientist. “I fully support the additional inquiry which may be the best way to remove any lingering doubts.”