The Mann Report

The New Scientist is reporting that Michael Mann has ‘been virtually cleared of professional misconduct by an internal university enquiry.’ The Penn State report is here.

The Penn State panel investigated four allegations against Mann, summarised as follows:

1. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to suppress or falsify data?
2. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4, as suggested by Phil Jones?
3. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any misuse of privileged or confidential information available to you in your capacity as an academic scholar?
4. Did you 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?

It then goes on to explain the process they followed and Mann’s cooperation and participation. By all accounts he cooperated fully with the inquiry. In sum they find no credible evidence to support the first three allegations. But they have an open finding on the fourth allegation.

The allegation inquires about whether Dr. Mann seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities. In 2006, similar questions were asked about Dr. Mann and these questions motivated the National Academy of Sciences to undertake an in depth investigation of his research. The committee that wrote the report on surface temperature reconstructions found that Dr. Mann’s science did fall well within the bounds of accepted practice. What has changed since that time is that private emails have come to our attention and that of the public at large, and these give us a glimpse into the behind the scenes workings of Dr. Mann and many of his colleagues in the conduct of their science.

The Penn State panel seem to have some reservations in this area (emphasis original).

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.

So there will be an additional inquiry into that matter. So he is not yet entirely off the hook, but Mann is confident.

“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.”

I have seen some commentary that suggests that a bunch of tenured profs have just vindicated another tenured prof. That sort of commentary doesn’t take us very far. Within the university a series of allegations have been made and within the processes available to Penn State they have been investigated. That doesn’t mean that Mann is now ‘innocent’ but it does mean that he is not guilty of the misconduct allegations made against him (well 3 of them anyway) under the university rules.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to The Mann Report

  1. Sinclair Davidson

    No. Allegations 1 through 3 are very narrow and very specific (as they should be). If you look at allegation 2, for example, Mann was able to produce the emails that Phil Jones had asked him to delete.

  2. JC

    Mann was able to produce the emails that Phil Jones had asked him to delete.

    How do we know they were the right ones as he appears that you can’t trust him as far as you can throw him.

  3. FDB

    DD and JC, demonstrating once more that they wouldn’t know honourable academic conduct if it took them out to a strip club and bought all the drinks.

  4. Sinclair Davidson

    FDB – that would be very honorable, but alas no, Mann didn’t pay for the drinks. 🙂

  5. dover_beach

    I think you can ascertain that it was a whitewash by looking at the people the Committee did and did not interview in their inquiry.

    http://climateaudit.org/2010/02/03/the-mann-report/

  6. C.L.

    FDB is an angry ant today. Ad homs a go-go. CL, JC and DD are all wrong because they’re big poo heads etc.

  7. FDB

    “FDB… Ad homs…”

    I’ve told you to go look that up before, so I won’t bother again, I’ll just save you the trouble.

    Saying that someone is a fool because they are wrong, which I arguably have done, is the precise opposite of an ad hominem argument.

  8. C.L.

    DD and JC, demonstrating once more that they wouldn’t know honourable academic conduct if it took them out to a strip club and bought all the drinks.

    Another ad hom.

    I don’t recall you denouncing dishonourable conduct when your Larvatis Prodeo buddies were calling Noel Pearson a coconut.

    But you wouldn’t cross the luvvie hive mind, would you?

  9. FDB

    Another ad hom.

    Nope. Not too bright, are you?

    I don’t recall you denouncing dishonourable conduct when your Larvatis Prodeo buddies were calling Noel Pearson a coconut.

    Orsum – CL’s other trick!

    “I call on you to denounce something completely irrelevant!”

  10. C.L.

    You were talking about honour. I was pointing out that you have no track record of that virtue. But then, your old trick is to give things a pass at the luvvie lounge and then act like an evangelist of morality here.

    You also seem very angry. I can only guess that this is caused by the collapse of warmenism – a religious system that obviously meant more to you than I thought. My condolences.

  11. FDB

    You seem confused. I’ll lay off.

  12. TerjeP (say Tay-a)

    The link offered by Dover Beach is worth a read.

  13. FDB

    Terje – not really.

    It’s the usual “I’m not actually doing anything scientific, so I’ll say THIS!!!” crap.

  14. dover_beach

    It’s the usual “I’m not actually doing anything scientific, so I’ll say THIS!!!” crap.

    You’ve been saying this and doing that for years, FDB.

  15. C.L.

    And the hits just keep on coming…

    Dike-gate:

    UN report wrongly claimed that more than half of the Netherlands is currently below sea level.

    Oops.

    In fact, just twenty percent of the country consists of polders that are pumped dry, and which are at risk of flooding if global warming causes rising sea levels. Dutch Environment Minister Jacqueline Cramer has ordered a thorough investigation into the quality of the climate reports which she uses to base her policies on.

    Warmenism is now, without question, the biggest scientific fraud in history.

  16. C.L.

    Dyke-gate, I should say.

  17. JC

    DD and JC, demonstrating once more that they wouldn’t know honourable academic conduct if it took them out to a strip club and bought all the drinks.

    In my opinion Mann is not an honorable person, FDB. You think he is?

  18. Pingback: Scholars and Rogues » Three of four misconduct allegations against Michael Mann found to be without merit (updated)

  19. dover_beach

    Why do I think that PSU inquiry into Mann was a whitewash? Because a previous review of Wang by SUNY-Albany was itself a whitewash.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/dispute-weather-fraud

Comments are closed.