Please explain which charges he should NOT have been absolved of?
Are you refuting that he was wrong?
Are you refuting that academia is tainted, not objective, peer-reviewed amounts to a buddy system and that it is largely a liberal infestation and cesspool?
You reacted to this news, so I inferred that you disagree with the findings. I asked which.
For example, he provided the data that some had claimed he'd destroyed. Should he have been found guilty anyway?!?
I hold Dr. Mann in extremely low regard, yet I concur with the findings on this group of the charges.