Penn State continues investigation regarding Michael Mann

Fresh on the heels of President Obama shutting down manned space flight so that NASA can focus its research on green aviation and climate science, Penn State University has announced it is continuing its investigation into the ethical practices of Michael Mann.  That’s the guy that created the hockey stick.  That’s the thing that set this whole global warming/climate change thing in motion.  Here’s the whole presser:

An internal inquiry by Penn State into the research and scholarly activities of a well-known climate scientist will move into the investigatory stage, which is the next step in the University’s process for reviewing research conduct.

A University committee has concluded its inquiry into allegations of research impropriety that were leveled in November against Professor Michael Mann, after information contained in a collection of stolen e-mails was revealed. More than a thousand e-mails are reported to have been “hacked” from computer servers at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in England, one of the main repositories of information about climate change.

During the inquiry, all relevant e-mails pertaining to Mann or his work were reviewed, as well as related journal articles, reports and additional information. The committee followed a well-established University policy during the inquiry (http://guru.psu.edu/policies/ra10.html ).

In looking at four possible allegations of research misconduct, the committee determined that further investigation is warranted for one of those allegations. The recommended investigation will focus on determining if Mann “engaged 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.” A full report (http://www.research.psu.edu/orp) concerning the allegations and the findings of the inquiry committee has been submitted.

In the investigatory phase, as in the inquiry phase, the committee will not address the science of global climate change, a matter more appropriately left to the profession. The committee is charged with looking at the ethical behavior of the scientist and determining whether he violated professional standards in the course of his work.

The investigatory committee will consist of five tenured full professor faculty members who will assess the evidence in the case and make a determination on Mann’s conduct.

The committee is careful to stress they are not questioning the science of climate change.  They are simply questioning the ethics of the person who started this whole mess.  Got that?  In other words, Michael Mann may have lied, the IPCC may have lied, and the United Nations may have lied, but that doesn’t mean climate change isn’t real.

Yeah.

Right.

HT: Green Hell

Related Posts

  • January 20, 2010 -- Email-gate, round 2 (0)
    Remember when all the world was freaking out over the hockey-stick?  Well, seems now the hockey-stick was never anything to worry about.  It was contrived, to put it nicely. Now, we have Himalay...
  • March 30, 2010 -- Correcting Jeff Masters and The Big Lie (0)
    My bud Jeff pointed me to an article by a fellow named Jeff.  I'm assuming he didn't write it.  In this article, the South Dakota State Legislature isn't too happy with the IPCC and therefore is su...
  • June 22, 2011 -- More ethics issues in the global warming non-debate (0)
    Several years ago global warming scientists made an astounding claim.  2005 was the hottest year on "record".  Nevermind all the previous history, the headline was what it was.  Some people doubted...
  • February 17, 2010 -- Phil Jones lost his data (1)
    For over five years here, I have questioned the evidence behind the global warming craze.  It just struck me as odd then, that although the climate was cooler here, Phil Jones had evidence that sai...
  • December 4, 2009 -- The global warming debate is still over (4)
    ”We’re not going to take a lot of time debating this anymore.” Barbara Boxer announced that decision in February 2007.  The reason I bitched about it then was she opposed Kyoto before deciding the...