The report is out, and further investigation is forthcoming.
Excerpts from the report are below, where they considered 4 allegations. They say only one had merit. That will be the subject of the upcoming investigation.
Excerpts:
“It is clear to those who have followed the media and blogs over the last two months that there are two distinct and deeply polarized points of view that have emerged on this matter. One side views the emails as evidence of a clear cut violation of the public trust and seeks severe penalties for Dr. Mann and his colleagues. The other side sees these as nothing more than the private discussions of scientists engaged in a hotly debated topic of enormous social impact.
We are aware that some may seek to use the debate over Dr. Mann’s research conduct and that of his colleagues as a proxy for the larger and more substantive debate over the science of anthropogenic global warming and its societal (political and economic) ramifications. We have kept the two debates separate by only considering Dr. Mann’s conduct.”
…
“Decision 4. Given that information emerged in the form of the emails purloined from CRU in November 2009, which have raised questions in the public’s mind about Dr. Mann’s conduct of his research activity, given that this may be undermining confidence in his findings as a scientist, and given that it may be undermining public trust in science in general and climate science specifically, the inquiry committee believes an investigatory committee of faculty peers from diverse fields should be constituted under RA-10 to further consider this allegation.
In sum, the overriding sentiment of this committee, which is composed of University administrators, is that allegation #4 revolves around the question of accepted faculty conduct surrounding scientific discourse and thus merits a review by a committee of faculty scientists. Only with such a review will the academic community and other interested parties likely feel that Penn State has discharged it responsibility on this matter.”
An investigatory committee of faculty members with impeccable credentials will consider this matter and present its findings and recommendations to Dr. Henry C. Foley within 120 days of being charged. The committee will consist of the following five faculty members:
1. Dr. Mary Jane Irwin, Evan Pugh Professor, Department of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering;
2. Dr. Alan Walker, Evan Pugh Professor, Department of Anthropology and Department of Biology;
3. Dr. A. Welford Castleman, Evan Pugh Professor, Department of Chemistry and Department of Physic;
4. Dr. Nina G. Jablonski, Head, Department of Anthropology; and
5. Dr. Sarah M. Assmann, Waller Professor, Department of Biology.
Ms. Candice Yekel, as Director of the Office for Research Protections and as the University’s Research Integrity Officer, will provide administrative support and assistance to the committee.
The investigatory committee’s charge will be to consider what are the bounds of accepted practice in this instance and whether or not Dr. Mann did indeed engage in, or participate 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.
Read the report here (PDF)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What I found interesting in the report was the following (p. 2):
“At the time of initiation of the inquiry, and in the ensuing days during the inquiry, no formal allegations accusing Dr. Mann of research misconduct were submitted to any University official. As a result, the emails and other communications were reviewed by Dr. Pell and from these she synthesized the following four formal allegations.”
IOW, no one made a “formal” complaint, therefore they decided what their line of enquiry would be, gave Mann lots of time to figure out his answers so that he could “impress” them with his “composure” and “forthright responses” (p. 4) thereby enabling them to find “no credible evidence” of the first three allegations.
Maybe it’s high time for some “formal allegations” to be submitted to a “University official”.
If Mann wants to play hockey, he picked a good year
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=01&fd=01&fy=1980&sm=01&sd=01&sy=2010
I wonder if they would’ve come to the same meek it-could’ve-been-my-ass conclusion if they had had a civil suit hanging over their heads. Or a federal charge. And will they stand by hockey-mann-stick in the future if, or when, the super-federal-men comes a nocking for purloined federal grant money.
Actually I find the analysis of these four points to be spot on. If we are going to have open scientific debate, then we have to accept the possibility that Dr. Mann’s conduct (Based on the CRU Evidence) does not meet the criterion set by questions #1,2 & 3.
(BTW – before loaded guns are pointed in my direction, I believe there are alternate and simpler explanations of recent climatic / weather trends that are simpler and better than AGW and if so then the principle of Occam’s razor should be applied.)
However the report does identify the one area in which there is significant evidence in the CRU emails that Dr. Mann and the others may have interfered with the scientific / peer review process. It leaves the possibility open (Which is to say there is credible evidence) that Dr. Mann and his AGW colleagues not only suppressed opposing scientific evidence, but also engaged in a conspiracy to suppress.
In my mind this is certainly the worst of the four issues under review.
Good result. If you examine the context of the Climategate emails looks like he will be found guilty as charged. I wonder what Dr. Jones of the CRU feels about this?
Finding #1 is 98% BS. The 2% of non-BS is in italics…
There’s no evidence that Mann intended to suppress or falsify inconvenient data. OK. I’ll buy that. It can’t be proven that he intended to suppress or falsify inconvenient data.
This bit here is laughable…
The most benign possible interpretation of the “trick” is that they edited part of Briffa’s reconstruction because the tree ring chronology showed that the 1930s to early 1940’s were warmer than the late 1990’s. So, they just substituted the instrumental record for the tree ring chronology.
I suppose that there is no evidence that they did this with an intent to deceive… But you can’t just substitute instrumental data for proxy data. The fact that they called it “Mike’s nature trick” sure makes it seem like this sort of thing was SOP.
Taking a set of data that shows that the 1930’s were warmer than the 1990’s and using another data set to reverse that relationship is not bringing “two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion.” It’s a total bastardization of the data.
If I have a seismic reflection surface that is dipping the wrong way, I can apply a velocity gradient to reverse the dip. When there is a geological reason to do so, this method can be used to correctly convert a time map of a seismic horizon to properly positioned depth map of a geological formation. When there is no geological reason to do so, I’m just fabricating a reason to drill a dry hole.
These people are like a bunch of out-of-control seismic modelers working with one point of well control.
Academia is so tolerant of their members that it is very rare when one is chastised. As a result there is an ethical vacuum in most universities. In Mann’s case, he will be judged by a committee of faculty who will not consider his behavior unethical unless his activities would reflect on them and their research. The political world of academe believes in total academic freedom. That freedom includes freedom from responsibility. Being wrong or incompetent is not justification for a reprimand let alone dismissal. Being unethical or bullying are not unknown behaviors in many institutions. The faculty committee will look at this issue through the rose colored glasses of a faculty charged with protecting, at all cost, academic freedom and from any external influence from interlopers in the AGW skeptics camp. They will conclude that no matter what we claim about Dr. Mann ethics, it is a university issue and not an issue of scientific integrity or crimes against humanity. They will conclude that the attacks on Dr. Mann are an attempt by the outside world to limit his and their academic freedom.
Thus, a negative recommendation would depend upon what pressure is brought to bear on the university over the next 120 days. Maybe a lawsuit filed against the University based on a racist claim would work, viz., the false scientific claims by Dr. Mann used by the world governments to limit fossil fuel use will ultimately cause people in Africa to starve to death as a result of a lack of energy needed to escape from their bondage of poverty reaped on them by cap and trade. Barring this extreme political case, the University administration will hide behind their decision, and say, the faculty have spoken. Perhaps I have spent too much time in faculty meeting, but I really hope I am wrong!
I interpret this to mean there will be absolutely no investigation of Mann’s science itself, but strictly a look at whether he’s going to be a liability or an asset to the university . If they perceive their donations and reputation will improve if they throw him under the bus, they’ll do it. If they think the case for AGW will ultimately be proven, then they’ll hang onto him and bask in any glory his research draws to the institution. Don’t ever make the mistake of believing they will do what’s ethical – they’ll spin those e-mail any way they see fit in order to support the direction they want to take.
So, for the next 120 days the tone and substance of the press coverage of Climategate, Michael Mann, the IPCC and AGW theory in general will have great bearing in how Mann’s jury of peers make a judgment on his future with Penn State.
I think it’s encouraging that they found some sort of justification to continue the investigation, even if the scope is narrowed considerably. At least this keeps the door open and that’s better than closed.
They could have just ended it by saying “nothing to see here, move along”, but they didn’t do that so imo, the glass is half full. 😉
peace,
Tim
New Scientist Headline: US ‘climategate’ scientist all but cleared of misconduct
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18474-us-climategate-scientist-all-but-cleared-of-misconduct.html
“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.”
While I dont believe Dr Mann will be found ‘guilty’ of anything serious… this is not good for his career. Maybe no public action, but behind the scenes there will be more doubt in academia about his research, in a couple years he will be off to another University.
And so we see that the main concern of the investigation is the “undermining [of] public trust in science,” as opposed to the alleged abuse of the whole scientific process. It’s clear that they are not interested in questioning whether this weakens the whole “science is settled” assertion, but rather are concerned that people’s *trust* in that assertion has been diminished. So I am expecting, on that basis, to see – whether by the exoneration or sacrifice of Mann – an effort to restore that trust in AGW so they can all get back to business as usual.
I hope I am just being cynical.
A whitewash to protect the cash flow. Time to call in the Feds for misuse of public funds.
Meh, Universities never rat on themselves, there’s too little at stake in the matter.
Government grants, however, fall under federal laws. This investigation from Penn State university while welcome was actually the icing without the cake. It was far-fetched to think his own university would ever seriously implicate him. When the s**t really hits the fan is when politicians who believed in him begin to feel betrayed by him, and then abandon any defense of him. Seriously, the only reason Mann came out looking at all good after the NSF and Wegman reports was because there were people in congress willing to spend political capital on him. That won’t last forever.
Do quotes such as these (limited to PSU e-mails) not constitute engaging in actions with the intent to suppress data?
“hi tim. personally, I don’t see why you should make any concessions for this moron. By the way, our supplementary site (now on scott’s computer) doesn’t block any ip#s. another lie.. Mike”
“The last thing you want to do is help them by feeding the fire. Best thing is to ignore them completely. They no longer have their friends in power here in the U.S., and the media has become entirely unsympathetic to the rants of the contrarians at least in the U.S.–the Wall Street Journal editorial page are about the only place they can broadcast their disinformation. So in other words, for contrarians the environment appears to have become very unfavorable for development. I would advise Wang the same way.”
“I don’t read E&E, gives me indigestion–I don’t even consider it peer-reviewed science, and in my view we should treat it that way. i.e., don’t cite, and if journalists ask us about a paper, simply explain its not peer-reviewed science, and Sonja B-C, the editor, has even admitted to an anti-Kyoto agenda!”
“Seems to me that CRU should charge him a fee for the service. He shouldn’t be under the assumption that he has the right to demand reports be scanned in for him on a whim. CRU should require reasonable monetary compensation for the labor, effort (and postage!). It this were a colleague acting in good faith, I’d say do it at no cost. But of, course, he’s not.”
“I never acknowledge emails from people I don’t know, about topics that are in any way sensitive. this is a perfect example of something that goes right to the trash bin,”
I did a search for Castleman, who will be on the committee. He is a hard science guy. Can’t find anything to see if he has strong views on AGW
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10013/1027688-115.stm?cmpid=education.xml
“If he provided all his emails around AR4, and none of the CRU emails or those referred to by the CRU emails were found to be missing, then #2 goes away”
No!
This simply demonstrates the inadequacy of the ‘investigation’. He was suspected of deleting some emails regarding AR4 at the request of Phil Jones. The ‘proof’ that he didnt is:
a) he says he didnt delete any emails, and
b) he provided some emails that reference AR4
That proves exactly nothing. He could have deleted damning emails and kept some innocuous ones that reference AR4 and provided those to the committee. Or, he could have deleted emails as requested by Phil Jones, but kept a hidden copy just in case he needed them … criminals tend to keep copies of mutually damning documents. They just keep them hidden.
The committee should not have accepted a ‘zip file’ of emails as proof that they were not deleted. Who knows where that zip file came from. They should have tasked IT experts from local law enforcement to determine if emails were missing from the email system and official archives.
This was a whitewash, intentionally, thru sheer incompetance, or both.
Now would be a very good time for interested parties to contact the administrative person for the RA-10 committee and ask, 1)who has standing to submit a formal complaint, and 2) how does one go about that?
What the committee needs is not a lot of blog chatter and (frankly, often nutty) insinuations. What the committee needs is a formal letter setting out specific allegations how Dr. Mann violated professional ethics by doing specific, verifiable things, with specific reference to CRU emails, publications, public comment by Dr. Mann and others, and specific citations to the relevant paragraphs of PSU’s ethics rules. Preferably such letters would come from other academics whose work was unfavorably reviewed by Dr. Mann, or who were treated by Dr. Mann in violation of professional ethics (refusal to share data, etc.)
Whitewash or not Mann’s finished
Weren’t papers M&M from for peer review rejected in part or in full because of the reviews of Jones, Mann, and company?
Mann might be paranoid even if we are all to get him!
Mann did actually, contrary to Finding 2: ” After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data related to AR4, as suggested by Dr. Phil Jones.”
In the exchange below, he clearly confirms his intentions to do exactly that:
From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008
“Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.”
From: Michael Mann
To: Phil Jones
Subject: Re: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 08:12:02 -040
I’ll contact Gene about this ASAP. His new email is: xxxxx@yxxxxx.com
No way, should he be able to talk himself out of that one. “Finding 2” is obviously wrong.
Tom G(ologist) is right. This inquiry was not about Mann’s research but about his behaviour. The report is damning. There was clearly a debate between the investigators with one side saying “this is not right” and the other side saying “don’t we all do this?”. So the verdict was referred to another committee, which is larger and further removed from Mann. Unlike the people on the old committee, the people on the new committee do not care about the reputation of the geosciences department or about the funds raised by Mann.
THIS just in…
WASHINGTON — “An academic board of inquiry has largely cleared a noted Pennsylvania State University climatologist of scientific misconduct, but a second panel will convene to determine whether his behavior undermined public faith in the science of climate change, the university said Wednesday…”.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/science/earth/04climate.html
…The second panel will determine if his behavior “undermined public faith in the science of climate change…”?????? In other words, they’re going to make sure that the public still adheres to AGW.
The decision of PSU to recommend a new investigation was the only way out that I for PSU. If PSU had decided that nothing was found and no further investigation would be done then outside forces (State of Pennsylvania & Federal gov’t) would intervene which would make PSU look like it is incapable to properly deal with its own affairs. By recommending new investigation they are maintaining some credibility. It allows independent investigations to start while PSU new investigation is ongoing. I think PSU would privately be encouraging some indepedent investigation to start before their new investigation ends. That would get them completely out of their difficult situation. I think PSU leadership is wise. This is looking good, but not for Prof Mann.
John
This is a question based on ignorance:
“How are these committee members qualified to evaluate the scientific evidence that underpins Mann’s work?”
We have Computer Science and Electrical Engineering Profesor; one for the Department of Anthropology and Department of Biology; Department of Chemistry and Department of Physic; Department of Anthropology; and
Department of Biology.
One hopes that if they do not they will at least talk with some of the protagonists on either side.
Of course, if they had a bunch of climatologists on hand we might suspect a fix anyway.
The more general question is, how do we know any scientists is above suspicion if they are not exposed to the scrutiny of their peers and how do universities measure performance other than by number (not quality) of publications and grants acquired?