Thread: Key 'climategate' scientist cleared of wrongdoing

For those of you who thought that 'climategate' required an investigation into exactly whether changed data affected the global warming consensus generally accepted by the majority of the scientific community, it looks like they took another look. This is the guy that used that infamous word "trick" that launched a thousand forum posts. What additional work is there to be done before AGW is accepted?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...12/2817577.htm

One of the scientists at the centre of the 'climategate' email scandal has been cleared of any wrongdoing, and had allegations of manipulating and hiding data dismissed.

Pennsylvania State University conducted an inquiry into Dr Michael Mann, a climatologist working for their Department of Meteorology, after a series of emails were leaked as proof scientists were manipulating data to push the case of human induced climate change.

Dr Mann was cleared of all allegations of misconduct, with one caveat. In relation to the allegation of deviating from accepted practices, while there was no evidence of his work falling outside of accepted scientific practice, the public nature of the leak and fears it may undermine trust in science mean further investigation was needed.

The University looked through all of Dr Mann's email correspondences in making its findings.

Central to the claims Dr Mann manipulated and withheld data was the use of the word 'trick' in an email exchange discussing a graph to be presented in a World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) report.

In the inquiry the University found the contrary to claims of falsification, the scientists involved were merely trying to explain data.

"In fact to the contrary, in instances that have been focused upon by some as indicating falsification of data, for example in the use of a 'trick' to manipulate the data, this is explained as a discussion among Dr Jones and others including Dr Mann about how best to put together a graph for a World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) report," the inquiry said.

"They were not falsifying data; they were trying to construct an understandable graph for those who were not experts in the field.

"The so-called 'trick' was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."

Professor Roger Jones for, Victoria Uni's Centre for Strategic Economic Studies says the report clears Dr Mann of any wrongdoing.

"Essentially what it shows is that there was no material evidence that Michael Mann had actually done any of those things, which was suppressing for falsifying data, deleting or concealing emails, and the misuse of privileged or confidential information, and they found that there was no evidence of that either," he said.

Professor Jones says while the scandal damaged public perception in the science of human induced climate changes, reviews like this are important to regain trust.

"We do have to maintain as much public confidence in the science as we can," he said.

"And if it comes to these sorts of unfortunate events where you get a whole heap of emails stolen you certainly have to have a close inquiry to try and maintain and restore that confidence if it's been eroded."

He says the scandal also shows the disconnect between the scientific consensus and the media debate on climate change.

"What we have is this situation where the overwhelming majority of the climate science community has got one view of the science, and there are a very small group of scientists, most of the time they're actually not practising in the climate area themselves, [who disagree]," he said.

"And the when you get into the media the mix is more like 50-50, so the public can get the view that there's actually a real debate going on here whereas while there is one in the media, in the science there isn't actually that much of a material debate."

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Oh well as long as a school cleared it all up then i guess there was never a problem. LOL does nothing to restore credit to a long standing tainted field.

Tainted for absolutely no reason other than the conspiracy theorists throwing around wild, unsubstantiated accusations.

said it back when "climategate" happened, it was what 4 e-mails out of 1000s? yet no-one seemed to care why the other 1000s weren't being talked about (or even saw the light of day, from what i remember) why is that?

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Originally Posted by Potemkine

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Oh well as long as a school cleared it all up then i guess there was never a problem. LOL does nothing to restore credit to a long standing tainted field.

Tainted for absolutely no reason other than the conspiracy theorists throwing around wild, unsubstantiated accusations.

Or it could be because the whole thing is a theory based off of something that has always been true with number that have to be fudged up to begin with. Climate has always changed and we haven't been here long enough researching it to make a valid call about it.

Tainted because numbers were "fudged"? What was "fudged"?

I disagree about our time spent researching climate. The science may be in its infancy, however we have a pretty good idea about just what the hell is happening, and more importantly, WHY.

So if in 30 years, we are all still on the forums, and we are witnessing an increased average temperature, more severe storms more frequently, etc. What are you going to say?

And to preempt your next question, I would be more than happy to say I was wrong. I would be ecstatic to say I was wrong, because that would mean our predictions were wrong.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Originally Posted by Red_Lizard2

said it back when "climategate" happened, it was what 4 e-mails out of 1000s? yet no-one seemed to care why the other 1000s weren't being talked about (or even saw the light of day, from what i remember) why is that?

It was way more than 4 but those are the ones that were discussed. Many were just emails about everyday shit. They all saw the light of day i posted the link for anyone that wanted to read them.

And the 4 that were harped on, were shown to be incorrectly analyzed but the skeptical public.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Just to be that guy pote is refering to. How do you take the word of a school that has a list of government funding like this.

General Information on government funding

?Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance - Program Areas
?FedBizOpps.gov
?Grants.gov
State and regional funding sources

?DEP Grant and Loan Programs
?Pennsylvania Environmental Education Grants Program
?Pennsylvania Growing Greener Program
?Search The Pennsylvania Bulletin
Federal funding sources

?Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
?CSREES-National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program
?Department of Defense Homepage
?Department of Energy - Office of Science Grants and Contracts Website
?Environmental Protection Agency Homepage
?EPA Catalog of Funding Sources for Watershed Protection
?EPA Grants and Funding in the Mid-Atlantic States
?EPA Grants and Debarment - How to Apply
?EPA Grants and Fellowship Information
?EPA Grants and Debarment
?EPA Great Lakes Program Funding
?EPA National Center for Environmental Research
?EPA Research Opportunities - Environmental Research Grant Announcements
?EPA Research and Development Research Grants, Fellowships and Small Business Opportunities
?EPA STAR Grants and Cooperative Agreements
?Fish and Wildlife Service Homepage
?FWS Grants at a Glance
?FWS - Division of Bird Habitat Conservation: U.S. Small Grants
?NASA Research Opportunities
?NIEHS - National Institute of Environmental Health
?National Cancer Institute Current Requests for Proposals
?National Institutes of Health Homepage
?NIH Grants and Funding Opportunities
?NIH - Request for Proposals (RFP) Directory
?National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association Homepage
?NSF - Find Funding
?Office of Naval Research - University Research Initiative
?Smithsonian - Office of Fellowships
?United States Geological Survey Homepage
?USGS Contract and Grant Information
?USGS Grants and Federal Assistance

Yeah no way they would be bias at all on how it all comes out in the end.

And less than a 1/3 of that list is in any way, climate or weather related. The actions of one professor are going to cost Penn State the funding of ALL those programs? Please, people are smarter than that.