Penn State clears climate researcher on 3 charges; 1 still pending

February 4, 2010 By Faye Flam,

A Pennsylvania State University committee Wednesday cleared climate researcher Michael Mann of professional-misconduct charges but said it would further investigate whether the scientist "deviated from accepted practices."

The inquiry was prompted by events in November, when hackers exposed more than 1,000 e-mail messages exchanged among climate scientists, many of which were sent to and from Mann.

No formal allegations were made against Mann, but the university decided to launch the inquiry after a flood of public complaints and accusations against the climatologist.

Mann is best known for using tree rings and other indirect measures to reconstruct Earth's climate over centuries past. Those reconstructions showed temperatures shooting upward in the 20th century in a graph that became known as the "hockey stick."

Wednesday's report, though welcomed by Mann, did not satisfy his critics, who immediately called the university's investigation a "whitewash."

The university panel was chaired by vice president for research Henry C. Foley, but neither he nor his three co-authors would comment on the report or explain why they were calling for a further investigation.

The hacking incident occurred days before world leaders convened in Copenhagen to work out a treaty for curbing carbon emissions.

A number of individuals read through the e-mail messages, picking out alleged examples of misconduct by Mann and others. These were used in blogs, op-eds and other public forums to discredit the consensus view in the field that human-generated greenhouse gases were becoming a major contributor to climate change.

The issue became known as "climategate."

The e-mail message that has most often been held up as evidence against Mann was written by a colleague. It referred to a "trick" Mann used to display some of his data. The panel concluded that this referred not to any attempted deception but to a technique for displaying data graphically.

University spokesman Bill Mahon said Penn State had received a torrent of complaints from people outside the university who were concerned that something inappropriate had happened.

Many of the complaints were anonymous e-mail, said Mahon, from "folks who have no facts -- more along the lines of, 'Fire Michael Mann, he's a horrible person.'"

After sifting through the e-mail, the panel divided the allegations into four categories:

• Falsifying or suppressing data.

• Deleting, concealing, or otherwise destroying e-mail associated with a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on .

• Misusing privileged or confidential information.

• Deviating from accepted practices within the academic community.

The panelists concluded that there was "no credible evidence" to charge Mann on any of the first three allegations, but they did not have enough information to draw a conclusion on the fourth. The report did not explain what was meant by "deviating from accepted practices," though it questioned whether the statements in the exposed e-mail sullied the reputation of the university or of science in general.

Spokesman Mahon said the panel was making no specific charges. "It wasn't indicating there was any guilt or lack of guilt. ... We think we need more information."

The fourth complaint will be investigated by five prominent Penn State scientists: a computer scientist, a physicist, a biologist and two anthropologists.

Mann said he was pleased with the report. "They absolved me of any wrongdoing on the three serious counts," he said. He added that he wasn't sure what the final charge meant or why he had not been cleared of it.

"Maybe they felt it would be more appropriate for a panel of my peers, rather than a group of administrators," he said.

Some are calling into question the panel's conclusion. The Commonwealth Foundation, a conservative group, took out a full-page ad in the student newspaper, Mahon said. "They suggested the inquiry was dishonest and the results were a whitewash."

Within hours of the release of the report, Fox News columnist Steve Milloy issued a statement calling Penn State's inquiry a whitewash.

"Comically, the report explains at length how the use of the word 'trick' can mean a 'clever device,'" wrote Milloy, who authors the Web site "The report ignores that it was a 'trick ... to hide the decline.'"

Others have pointed out that the phrase "hide the decline" was used by a different researcher, not Mann, to refer to an apparent decline in temperatures reflected in a certain type of tree ring, not to a decline in global temperatures or anything Mann used in his data.

In 2006, Mann's work was reviewed by a panel assembled by the National Academy of Science, following allegations against the statistical methods he used to graph global temperatures. That report found no evidence of misconduct.

Most climate scientists have defended Mann. Michael Oppenheimer, a at Princeton University, called Mann a good scientist and an honest one. "The only lack of integrity in this case is on the part of those who stole the e-mails," he said.

Explore further: Penn State scientist at center of a storm


Related Stories

Penn State scientist at center of a storm

December 9, 2009

A few words culled from some hacked e-mails in Britain have generated chaos in the world of climate science -- throwing dark clouds over Pennsylvania State University and stirring up negative publicity for the field that ...

Obama science advisers grilled over hacked e-mails

December 3, 2009

(AP) -- House Republicans pointed to controversial e-mails leaked from climate scientists and said it was evidence of corruption. Top administration scientists looking at the same thing found no such sign, saying it doesn't ...

Hackers leak e-mails, stoke climate debate

November 21, 2009

(AP) -- Computer hackers have broken into a server at a well-respected climate change research center in Britain and posted hundreds of private e-mails and documents online - stoking debate over whether some scientists have ...

Accuracy of past hurricane counts good

November 26, 2007

Counting tropical storms that occurred before the advent of aircraft and satellites relies on ships logs and hurricane landfalls, making many believe that the numbers of historic tropical storms in the Atlantic are seriously ...

Science not faked, but not pretty

December 12, 2009

(AP) -- E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data - but the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review ...

Scientist: Leak of climate e-mails appalling

November 23, 2009

(AP) -- A leading climate change scientist whose private e-mails are included in thousands of documents that were stolen by hackers and posted online said Sunday the leaks may have been aimed at undermining next month's ...

Recommended for you

Weather anomalies accelerate the melting of sea ice

January 16, 2018

In the winter of 2015/16, something happened that had never before been seen on this scale: at the end of December, temperatures rose above zero degrees Celsius for several days in parts of the Arctic. Temperatures of up ...


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

3.4 / 5 (13) Feb 04, 2010
It's interesting how they investigated Mann by asking him if he did and accepting his response of 'No'. By also avoiding interviewing any neutral or opposed parties?
3.5 / 5 (11) Feb 04, 2010
I regret to say that Steve Milloy is right. Penn State's inquiry was obviously a whitewash.

Princeton University and its Professor Michael Oppenheimer should be ashamed for the statement, "The only lack of integrity in this case is on the part of those who stole the e-mails".

That's my opinion,
Oliver K. Manuel
3.6 / 5 (12) Feb 05, 2010
Regardless of what Mann did or did not do, Penn State has a conflict of interest and cannot come to an unbiased finding for or against Mann.

The climategate issue needs to be investigated by an independent panel of legal experts, preferably those trained in FOIA and federal funded research legalities.

A board of academics cannot reasonably be engaged in this issue as the discussion of climate is far too polarized and finding unbiased individuals may be incredibly difficult.

That being said, to me there is clear evidence that Mann did not adhere to the rules governing FOIA requests.
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 05, 2010
Awww come on now. AGW is real. AGW is real. Just ask the UN. The UN even though it is one of the most corrupt organizations in the world, we can trust it on AGW. It can measure Glaciers (woops), it can tell how much of neitherland is under water (woops), it wouldn't try to hid evidence (woops). Al Gore wouldnt lie (woops), Al Gore doesnt fly private jets (woops), AGW has the source data to prove AGW (woops), AGW models work (woops), temperature stations dont move (woops), weather station works (woops), the hockey stick diagram is accurate (woops). AGW Scientist wouldn't stop the work of those that dont believe (woops)... there are no more woops (woops)

Let me repeat least anyone doesnt believe... AGW is real, AGW is real. The science is settled, your an idiot for not believing.
Feb 05, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.