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)
Issa Praises Penn State University Finding in Investigation of Key ‘Climategate’ Scientist
http://republicans.oversight.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=525:issa-praises-penn-state-university-finding-in-investigation-of-key-climategate-scientist-&catid=27:latest-news
Wow, after white-washing him on the first three, they actually set-up a hangin’ posse on the 4th.
Their reasons to go forward on the 4th are “public trust” –in other words, because there has been an outcry, public trust was damaged, so we must further investigate. This is very circular logic, quite independent from whether the public outcry was actually justified.
So they are actually set up to 1) Say he did nothing wrong, and, 2) Reprimand him anyway for embarrassing them with the public.
Sometimes one just has to marvel at the inventiveness of the bureaucratic hive-mind in self-perservation mode to find solutions that are not inherently compatible.
Well, if they can get past email 1051202354 (dated Apr 24, 2003) without realizing Mann was directly involved in a cabal who’s only purpose was to subvert the peer review process, then it’s a whitewash indeed.
A few choice comments;
“Thanks for your comments, and sorry to any of you who don’t wish to receive these correspondances(sic)…”
He (Mike Mann) acknowledges in this salutation that he is aware of the impropriety.
He then goes on to discuss how he’s provided Dave Halpern with his review comments, which is interesting because the review process is to be independent and anonymous, then goes on to offer assistance to the other reviewers, should they need it.
Next; (in the same email chain)
“Michael E. Mann wrote:
Dear Tom et al,
Thanks for comments–I see we’ve built up an impressive distribution list here!”
This is where he notes the long list of CC’s, and seems to understand they’ve got quite a team assembled. At this point, everybody should have opted out, realizing that scientific credentials could be in jeopardy, should this situation reveal itself to the academic world at large. It is okay to converse with colleagues, when you’ve cornered the entire field and are actively colluding on who does and does not get published in your field, there’s little gray area left.
Next he (Mike Mann, in case you forgot) proceeds to comment on the potential comments of two of the ‘independent and anonymous’ peer reviewers , and offers a brief overview of the comments he would make on the Soon and Baliunas paper, (I believe ’01), and gives an overview of contemporary work he and Jones are working on, as well as new work by Bradley, Malcolm, Hughes & Diaz. Next he digress’ into out and out advocacy in the political arena. Far from true scientific discourse, and a good heads up to his potential field of peer reviewers, should they be tasked as such on the aforementioned work.
This chain seems to have originated with an email to Mike, from Tom Wrigley, wherein he (Tom) describes his interest in reviewing some recent skeptic articles, and although he refers to one as abuse of the peer review process (the irony here is palpable) and describes it as bad science, he is all the while discussing strategies in which the group might be able to successfully rebut the articles and attack the credibility of the authors and editors. Decorum prevents me from characterizing this section.
Tom’s email should have elicited a warning from Mike regarding such conduct. It did not. Instead Mike willingly joined and participated in the group, offering advice and instruction (marching orders?) to anyone on the CC list.
As I said; if the RA10 jury can swallow this one email without puking, it’s a whitewash indeed. I don’t know how they could honestly do that with any credibility whatsoever.
By the way, here’s the (redacted) distribution list (WOW, it’s an all star who’s who in the climate change industry!);
From: “Michael E. Mann”
TO: mark.eakin@BLANK.BLANK
Cc: Tom Wigley ,Phil
Jones,Mike Hulme m.hulme@BLANK.BLANK.uk>, Keith Briffa , James Hansen , Danny Harvey , Ben Santer <santer1@BLANK.BLANK,
Kevin Trenberth , Robert wilby , Tom Karl, Steve Schneider , Tom Crowley, jto , “simon.shackley” , “tim.carter”, “p.martens” , “peter.whetton” , “c.goodess”c.goodess@BLANK.BLANK.uk>,”a.minns”>a.minns@BLANK.BLANK.uk>,WolfgangCramer,”j.salinger”j.salinger@BLANK.BLANK.nz>,”simon.torok” , Scott Rutherford , Neville Nicholls ,RayBradley, MikeMacCracken,BarriePittock, Ellen Mosley-Thompson ,
“pachauri@BLANK.BLANK.in” , “Greg.Ayers” ,wuebbles@BLANK.BLANK.edu,christopher.d.miller@BLANK.BLANK, mann@BLANK.BLANK
note; the email itself contains an admonition to update contacts with corrected email addresses. Clearly, there was a lot of collusion involved in the ‘independent and anonymous’ peer review process.
Wouldn’t this be about time that all raw “Earth Data” be gathered by a truly independent international organization to assure their safety and integrity?
Wow, it didn’t hit me till I posted that that he’s safe because THAT happened at Virginia!!!
Unbelievable!
Hmmm… i think i hear the paint shaker getting the whitewash ready to roll over the allegations and make them disappear. Sad day for science, indeed.
Keep your kids out of Penn. Their science is all suspect when tenured peers make a judgement on another tenured peer, and i’m betting we can all predict with some degree of accuracy – today – what their findings will be in about 3 months.
Friends don’t let friends send their kids to the Penn.
mandolinjon (11:36:26) :
“…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!”
Actually that is not a bad idea. Cap and Trade will adversely effect the cost of food, heat, and transportation, three out of the six big costs of living for the poor/elderly. The other three are housing, health care and clothing. You can cut the cost of clothing by buying used or patching but the other five are a lot harder to cut without ending up homeless.
Who decided what the questions should be?
EXACTLY! questions so carefully worded, so long, and so complicated are the sign not of an investigation, but of a negotiation in advance to arrive at a process the gives the perception of being thorough with out actually looking at the issue.
How about “Dr Mann, have you seen any data that would contradict any of your scientific conclusions?” That’s a yes or no answer. the complexity of the question is a diversion, as is the complexity of the analysis.
One cannot help but be impressed. Law schools should be paying attention.
I read the entire ruling, too. I believe it to be the only outcome possible from a sympathetic, home team investigation. I am offended by the committee describing the emails as purloined, and by the big pat on the head Mann gets– ‘ were impressed by Dr. Mann’s composure and his forthright responses to all of the queries that were asked of him.’
But to expect any more from PSU is naive. They are just kicking the can down the road. Why, it’s almost like they are government employees.
“Once they have you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers” – Slothrup’s Third Proverb
If they go that route, they will end up driving around in a whitewashed beater.
A ‘beater’ is a car that has been in a crackup, never fixed, sports crumpled body parts, cheap grey-spraypaint, taped windows & headlights, and a “Temporary Operating Permit” red sticker on the rear window.
Everybody knows what it is.
At some point, Penn State might decide they are beyond the red sticker in the window, and get to the body shop.
Or not. Penn State has other problems besides this.
I have little doubt this is a white wash. And Penn State should be ashamed of itself. I feel there needs to be a major change in administration.
However, I have to point out. A lot of the reason I’m a skeptic is my undergraduate degree in anthropology. It’s been a while; but, some of us actually had to get dirty studying strata. Some of us had to try to divine past climate through things as pollen samples, charcoal, bones, the way the strata formed. Even tree rings.
Plus if we’re honest, we should remember our own fraud. Piltdown. We bought that BS for a long time.
Hooray!
I had thought that they would conclude that there had been a few questionable acts, but nothing serious.
My confidence in the academic process is being restored
Alright, stop harshing on the anthropologists! Do I need to start with my enginerding jokes?
Re Penn State: about what I expected. I’m not sure why folks here thought that PSU’s investigation of Mann would become the Scopes trial of AGW. For a university to start pronouncing on the validity of faculty research is a very difficult and dangerous thing to do. There would have to be clear and convincing evidence presented to the university for it to even consider opening such an inquiry. Obviously, most faculty would oppose such an investigation on principle, with the result being that Mann, despite being an über-d*ckhead (IMO), would garner incredible support
This investigation is, correctly IMO, about Mann’s behavior. Did he violate accepted codes of conduct? These are partly spelled out in faculty handbooks, but there are unwritten codes too. For this reason, I think it’s a good thing that there are anthropologists on the committee. They might bring a more critical awareness of the academic sub-culture in which Mann et. al. have been allowed to play fast and loose with those codes.
Defense lawyer – did you knowingly at any time, engage in any actions intentional or otherwise, while residing at your current residence, and during the period of day x to day y, cause acceleration to an object of any sort, with a mass sufficient to be consistent with the medical report published on day x by investigator y, that could have resulted in the victim’s alleged deterioration in health that occured in a coincidental time period?
Defendent – No.
Judge – Prosecutor, you may cross examine.
Prosecutor – thank you your honor. Defendent, did you hit the victim with a brick?
Defense lawyer – your honour, a pre-existing agreement between the defendent and the prosecution in regard to an unrelated criminal matter in which my client is testifying prohibits the asking of that question. Please have it stricken from the record.
Hmmm. Two anthropologists on the board. It might be a good time to have discussions about the Piltdown Man. I like this title from Google:
“The Piltdown Man, a notorious anthropological hoax – Crime Library …”
A fun little story about the most famous scientific hoax that discredited an entire field of science. Now that at least the British press is interested, maybe an article here asking, “What do you think is the most notorious scientific fraud, the Piltdown Man, or climategate?”
It might remind a couple of people how damaging scientific fraud can be.
I’m surprised no-one in the US has invoked proceedings under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). I believe using manipulated data would be illegal under this act.
Penn State Admin policies
Yeppers. He belongs at the State Pen
Not at Penn State!!
State Pen Ivy? Not so much.
Very simple: Penn state does not have the scientific ressources necessary to see the hidden decline. Either they don’t have scientists with the qualifications necessary, or those did not want to participate.
Being we’ve been advised : it’s ok and acceptable scientific practice to simplify for everyone, making a chart where you sandwich together two different types of data.
Should we make a chart utilizing station data from say 1900-1960; then tacking on temps derived from tree rings?
Would anyone have the ability to do this easily?
It should be as accurate as Mr. Mann’s chart.
@ur momisugly Henry chance (15:54:37) : Yeppers. He belongs at the State Pen
Not at Penn State!!
There’s plenty of room at Western Pen…there are lots of river rats there. Big ones. He’ll feel right at home.
Let the whitewash begin.
http://greenhellblog.com/2010/02/03/penn-state-primes-for-the-climategate-whitewash/
But you do have to admit that he is Ivy league material. Maybe if we just treat the whole problem with calamine lotion, we can clear it up?
@Dale Rainwater kill (15:18:33) :
“Why, it’s almost like they are government employees.”
Fortunately, I swallowed that last sip of soda just in time, right before I read that.
Interesting they would make the ratio 2:3 soft science:hard science (anthropology:chemistry/biology). Why not 5 from chemistry, physics, biology, geology, and meteorology? My guess is that was done guarantee that the objectivity so necessary in the hard sciences and so lacking in the soft sciences will be watered down. The anthropologists will be hard-pressed even to understand the issues at stake, and I think they want it that way.
The anthropoligists will understand EXACTLY the issues. Knowledge is power if you believe it, it doesn’t have to be right. The shaman said the spirits were angry and so shared power with the chief. The shaman became a church that said the sun circled the earth and shared power with the government. The scientist is now the third source of knowledge based power in the world, and is fighting for control with both church and government. Incorrect knowledge is just as powerfull as correct knowledge if it can’t be challenged. Can you prove that the spirits are not angry? That the sun does not circle the earth? That AGW does not exist? No? then those things are true and the masses must be governed accordingly. The anthropologists will no more offend an emerging power than would anyone else. This is about power, not accuracy of knowledge.