'ClimateGate' Inquiry Determines Investigation Warranted in One of Four 'Possible Allegations'

Bob McCarty Writes ^ | 2-03-10 | Bob McCarty

[BobMcCartyWrites]

In looking at four "possible allegations" of research misconduct against meteorology professor Michael Mann, a Penn State University panel has determined that further investigation is warranted for one of them.

[BobMcCartyWrites]

In looking at four "possible allegations" of research misconduct against meteorology professor Michael Mann, a Penn State University panel has determined that further investigation is warranted for one of them.

The allegations -- or "possible allegations" as they put it -- stem from Mann's alleged involvement in the “ClimateGate” e-mails scandal that surfaced in early December and seemed to show evidence of fraud and conspiracy among the research scientists and others whose work formed much of the basis of calls for extreme climate change regulation.

Smack dab in the middle of the scandal was Mann, the inventor of the famous “hockey stick” graph which, 10 years ago, claimed to show that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures had shot up to their highest level in recorded history. It was made famous in Al Gore’s Academy Award®-winning documentary on global warming, “An Inconvenient Truth.”

While this is good news, I suspect panel members are secretly hoping someone else will shoulder responsibility for determining Mann's guilt or innocence before they're forced to reach any conclusion(s).

Below is the text of the release about the inquiry issued by members of the panel a short while ago:

University Park, Pa. — An internal inquiry by Penn State into the research and scholarly activities of a well-known climate scientist will move into the investigatory stage, which is the next step in the University's process for reviewing research conduct.

A University committee has concluded its inquiry into allegations of research impropriety that were leveled in November against Professor Michael Mann, after information contained in a collection of stolen e-mails was revealed. More than a thousand e-mails are reported to have been "hacked" from computer servers at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in England, one of the main repositories of information about climate change.

During the inquiry, all relevant e-mails pertaining to Mann or his work were reviewed, as well as related journal articles, reports and additional information. The committee followed a well-established University policy during the inquiry (http://guru.psu.edu/policies/ra10.html ).

In looking at four possible allegations of research misconduct, the committee determined that further investigation is warranted for one of those allegations. The recommended investigation will focus on determining if Mann "engaged in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities." A full report (http://www.research.psu.edu/orp) concerning the allegations and the findings of the inquiry committee has been submitted.

In the investigatory phase, as in the inquiry phase, the committee will not address the science of global climate change, a matter more appropriately left to the profession. The committee is charged with looking at the ethical behavior of the scientist and determining whether he violated professional standards in the course of his work.

The investigatory committee will consist of five tenured full professor faculty members who will assess the evidence in the case and make a determination on Mann's conduct.

Worth noting is the time frame set forth by university policy:

If an investigation is undertaken pursuant to this policy, the investigation should normally be concluded, and a decision made by the Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School, within 120 days from the initiation of the investigation.

Stay tuned!

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

the committee will not address the science of global climate change, a matter more appropriately left to the profession a railroad engineer from Mumbai, India.

Some things just need fixin'

[refermech]

You did a bang up job fixin that!

[Reo]

They should take that hockey stick and beat his reputation to a pulp.

[equalitybeforethelaw]

Looks like Penn State has found that anything Mann did did not cause any liability to Penn State. Folks, this commission is merely lipstick to protect the University. Remember, for every dollar in research grants that Mann received from the Feds, the University skimmed a healthy amount for overhead. The University’s main worry is finding itself on the paying end of a lawsuit. This commission is their attempt to protect themselves. Any sixth grader reading the e-mails knows that this man and his office were cooking the books for cash. Leave it to a bunch of professors to find only the slightest indescretion on the part of Mann. BS.

[Matchett-PI]

bttt

[hinckley buzzard]

Well yeah. The "commission" was headed by Mann's own department head, who has a material interest in protecting his miscreant faculty member. Since the proceedings were confidential, it is a safe bet that some mighty fine whitewashing has gone on.

[Loyal Buckeye]

The fix is in.

[Tallguy]

Yep! Whittled it down to a single charge where the accused will be able to quibble with the interpretation of any damning evidence. Good job, PSU! We’re #1 (in academic fraud, apparently).

[steelyourfaith]

 

Prostitute "Scientist",
Son of Log Lady !

[William Tell]

equalitybeforethelaw said: "Leave it to a bunch of professors to find only the slightest indescretion on the part of Mann."

I expected the charges to perhaps include specific mention of the "hockey stick", for example.

Instead, the charge to be investigated is whether Mann "engaged in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities."

I can't imagine what misbehavior Mann may have committed that would not be included in such a broad charge. If the committee does its job, Mann is toast and AGW will be taking a big hit.

Most of us here are pretty sure about Mann's integrity. Now we get to learn about the integrity of the investigators.

[ccmay]

The University’s main worry is finding itself on the paying end of a lawsuit.

And so it should. Every university involved in this is a big fat target for a qui tam lawsuit. Billions of tax dollars have been squandered on this junk science, and you can get a hefty "finder's fee" if you expose misuse of government funds.

Perhaps the junkyard dogs of Judicial Watch should get involved.

[supercat]

Instead, the charge to be investigated is whether Mann "engaged in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities."

How did he deviate from "accepted practices", given that the practices of withholding data and trashing those who would demand it seem to be pretty much the norm?

[William Tell]

supercat said: "... pretty much the norm? "

I was actually considering sending a letter to someplace like MIT, pointing out that it is THEIR reputation as real scientists which is at risk.

There's a joke about real scientists or engineers being the type of people who would troubleshoot or repair a guillotine to be used for their own execution. If somebody influential at such an institution became motivated to push down this house of cards, it would certainly fall.