Thread: Climate Scientist Cleared of Altering Data

An American scientist accused of manipulating research findings on climate science was cleared of that charge by his university on Thursday, the latest in a string of reports to find little substance in the allegations known as Climategate.

An investigative panel at Pennsylvania State University, weighing the question of whether the scientist, Michael E. Mann, had “seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities,” declared that he had not.

The panel did not try to vet the accuracy of the science published by Dr. Mann, including a famous finding that the temperature of the earth had jumped recently, compared with past climate inferred from indicators like tree rings. Instead, it examined his methodology — his analytical techniques, his willingness to share data with those skeptical of his findings and the like. The panel unanimously found his approach “well within the range of accepted practices.”

Two inquiries in Britain have largely exonerated the scientists there who were caught up in Climategate, though one report did offer minor criticism of statistical techniques.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/02/sc...e.html?_r=1&hp

it examined how much research funding he was bringing into the university. The panel unanimously found his approach “well within the range of accepted practices. And voted for a pay rise.

Good work there.

Originally Posted by raycarey

The panel did not try to vet the accuracy of the science published by Dr. Mann, including a famous finding that the temperature of the earth had jumped recently, compared with past climate inferred from indicators like tree rings.

Why the hell not? It was the accuracy of his findings which were in question in the first place and methodology of their computer modeling is highly questionable.

Clearly a case of covering their own asses.

Ray you forgot to quote this little gem from the article:

“It’s no surprise that it’s a whitewash of Dr. Mann’s misconduct, because it was designed to be a whitewash,” said Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Washington advocacy group. He accused the panel of failing to interview important witnesses.

Oops!

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Originally Posted by raycarey

The panel did not try to vet the accuracy of the science published by Dr. Mann, including a famous finding that the temperature of the earth had jumped recently, compared with past climate inferred from indicators like tree rings.

Why the hell not? It was the accuracy of his findings which were in question in the first place and methodology of their computer modeling is highly questionable.

Clearly a case of covering their own asses.

actually earl, the global warming deniers (aka the flat-earthers) were screaming about the methodology. in fact, this forum was full of threads and posts about an alleged 'climate gate'.

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Ray you forgot to quote this little gem from the article:

“It’s no surprise that it’s a whitewash of Dr. Mann’s misconduct, because it was designed to be a whitewash,” said Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Washington advocacy group. He accused the panel of failing to interview important witnesses.

Oops!

no, i didn't forget to quote the remarks by the director of the competitive enterprise institute because one of their primary objectives is to act as shills for the fossil fuels industry.

CAFE Standards | CEI