Work Judged “Outstanding” by Scientific Community;

Follows String of Actions Reaffirming High Quality of Climate Science

WASHINGTON (July 1, 2010) – Pennsylvania State University today concluded that there is “no substance” to allegations of misconduct levied against Professor Michael Mann late last year by climate science deniers.

The Penn State Investigatory Committee’s final report found that Mann’s “scientific work, especially the conduct of his research, has from the beginning of his career been judged to be outstanding by a broad spectrum of scientists.”

The committee further determined that: “Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he 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.”

Special Advisor to the Project on Climate Science Sherwood Boehlert, hailed the report, saying: “This exoneration should close the book on the absurd episode in which climate scientists were unjustly attacked when in fact they have been providing a great public service.” Boehlert, former Congressman (R- NY) and Chair of the House Science Committee, added, “The attacks on scientists were a manufactured distraction, and today’s report is a welcome return to common sense. While scientists can now focus on their work, policy makers need to address the very real problem of climate change.”

The inquiry by a panel of faculty members with impeccable credentials included an exhaustive examination of all of the stolen e-mails pertinent to Dr. Mann; extensive interviews of Dr. Mann and top scientists from other universities and institutions; as well as written materials and copies of e-mails sought from and supplied by Dr. Mann. Penn State’s news release regarding the results of its inquiry is available here.

Genesis of Investigation

Mann’s scientific work came under intensive attack following the widely publicized theft of numerous e-mails stolen from a server at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Great Britain in November 2009. Various e-mails by Professor Mann were, as he said, “misrepresented, cherry-picked. . . [and] completely twisted to imply the opposite of what was actually being said.”

Penn State began its investigation almost immediately after it received numerous complaining e-mails, letters and phone calls in the aftermath of the November 2009 e-mail thefts, looking into four formal allegations synthesized from those complaints. Investigators earlier this year found no substance to the first three allegations, and today’s report affirms the integrity of Mann’s research on all counts.

This final Penn State report echoes the recent flurry of media retractions and various official investigations debunking the “Climate-gate” scandal.

All of the climate scientists targeted by the hacked e-mails from the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University have been exonerated. The panels found that the scientists were innocent of any significant wrongdoing – and, furthermore, that none of the information in the stolen e-mails alters the fundamental scientific findings of their research.

These panels include:

• Reponse by the University of East Anglia to the Report by Lord Oxburgh’s Science Assessment Panel (April 14, 2010)

• The Science and Technology Committee Report of the British Parliament (March 31, 2010)

• The Times of London has retracted its story reporting allegations that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) erred in its account of climate change impacts on the Amazon.

• The German paper Frankfurter Rundschau withdrew a similar story that incorrectly reported that the IPCC erred in its account of climate change impacts in Africa – charges that have also been proven off-base.

• Newsweek recently reported on these retractions, calling climategate a “highly orchestrated, manufactured scandal.”

Additional Details on the Penn State Report

The final Penn State report on Dr. Mann’s work specifically examined the issues of proposing, conducting, reporting and sharing research. Its findings on:

• Proposing research: “Mann…. has met or exceeded the highest standards of his profession for proposing research.”

• Conducting research: “Dr. Mann’s conduct of his research has followed acceptable practice within his field.” And that “his scientific work, especially the conduct of his research, has from the beginning of his career been judged to be outstanding by a broad spectrum of scientists.”

• Reporting research: “Dr. Mann’s reporting of his research has been successful and judged to be outstanding by his peers.”

• Sharing his research, both raw data and codes for analysis: “Dr. Mann, in all of his published studies, precisely identified the source(s) of his raw data and, whenever possible, made the data and or links to the data available to other researchers. These actions were entirely in line with accepted practices for sharing data in his field of research.” And that “the manner in which Dr. Mann used and shared source codes has been well within the range of accepted practices in his field.”

To view a Climate Science Watch interview with Dr. Michael Mann on his exoneration, click here

Comments are closed.