Image: NASA
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
The National Science Foundation has closed its investigation into Pennsylvania State University climatologist Michael Mann after finding no evidence of scientific misconduct related to his research.
It is the latest in a string of investigations to exonerate scientists involved in the so-called "Climategate" email scandal.
Mann was a central figure in the fracas, where a sampling of correspondence from climate scientists purloined from a computer server at the University of East Anglia in Britain supposedly showed climate scientists colluding to fabricate data and smear critics.
But a successive series of investigations and inquiries since the emails were released in 2009 have exonerated the scientists. The final conclusion from the NSF's Office of Inspector General is no different.
"No direct evidence has been presented that indicates the subject fabricated the raw data he used for his research or falsified his results," the report concludes. "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct, ... we are closing this investigation with no further action."
The NSF released its conclusions last week and, following standard protocol for investigations, did not mention Mann by name. "We do not identify the subject by name due to privacy considerations," said Susan Carnohan, chief of staff to the inspector general.
Mann, in an interview, said he had received a letter from the inspector general about the case that referenced the same case number identified in the NSF's closeout memorandum.
And several other clues in the memo point to Mann, particularly a reference to a university inquiry into four allegations of research misconduct – the same four allegations investigated, and subsequently dismissed, by Penn State.
The NSF audit doesn't put the email scandal completely behind the scientists. A separate case, by Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli to obtain emails from when Mann was a professor at the University of Virginia, remains in court but was rebuffed last year by a state judge who found no evidence of fraud.
But it does "completely vindicate" climate scientists, said liberal blogger Joe Romm, who first broke the story on his website, Climate Progress, and who lamented the lack of attention the investigations have received compared to the uproar accompanying their release two years ago.
"The vindications of the science and the man are reported as quietly as if they cam from the Whos of Whoville," he wrote.
Mann, who is on sabbatical from Penn State, is spending half his year writing a book and the other half advising Environmental Health Sciences, publisher of the DailyClimate.org and EHN.org, on climate science.
He has no illusion that the latest findings will quash the debate over climate science.
"Climate change deniers continue to dredge up long-discredited talking points," he said. "This establishes that every credible body has found that there is no evidence at all for the allegations.
"It should be the final nail in the coffin," he added. "The only reason it won't be, if it isn't, is because climate change deniers are never willing to admit that they're wrong."
DailyClimate.org is a nonprofit news service covering climate change.
This article originally appeared at The Daily Climate, the climate change news source published by Environmental Health Sciences, a nonprofit media company.
See what we're tweeting about
6 Comments
Add CommentSo this body is moraly corrupt also. Anyone who actually reads the emails can see for themselves what took place. if you see red, no amount of persuasion can convince you it was actually white you were looking at unless you want to be convinced you were wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou see what you want to see. I read them and did not come to your conclusion. So until someone finds these scientists guilty - you will judge everyone else as liars or corrupt.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWelcome to the reason conspiracy theories exist.
It was done by Russian hackers actually, from what can be determined. That makes sense too though. After all Uncle Vlad is a great champion of the truth, and wouldn't have the SLIGHTEST reason (besides quite impressive oil reserves that is) to want to bend the truth...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, Carlyle, it is all a big conspiracy eh? The whole world against you few brave truth flayers (oh, and of course 1 or 2 multi-trillion dollar energy companies, shouldn't forget them, should we...).
AGW deniers are SUCH a confounded waste of time. If they weren't constantly throwing up roadblocks, we (our species) would be well on our way to solving this problem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow much time and money do we have to waste trying to satisfy people who blatantly ignore science and choose to live in a fantasy where changing the concentration of a gas in the atmosphere by 40% does nothing? We're wasting valuable time dragging these people along, people who obviously don't want to be a part of the 21st Century and prefer instead to use 19th Century technology to power our society.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLook, you might have beef with the Scientific Method or something and that's fine, but try to leave the SCIENTIFIC discussions to those who actually respect the world's academic institutions and the process of peer review. Leave your politics at the door and stop using all those petty, tribal, dog-whistle buzz words if you want to discuss how we will solve this problem.
I hope we do address the cause of the warming problem, and are not faced with some grand mega engineering deployment that can only be deployed but not withdrawn. Just imagine we engineer a giant shade of some kind for the planet, but then yellow stone park erupts and throws so much debris into the atmosphere that we have a permanent winter for a year.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat we do, good or bad, I hope we can undo, if and when the need arises.
As for the article, I didn't believe the emails rose to the level of evidence of wrongdoing, fixing the data, or fixing the analysis. I am certain the judgment is based on earlier and later emails to put discussions in context, a recognition that scientists, too are entitled to personal opinions, and that scientific peer review did not contradict scientific outcomes. For a second time.
I think we have faced this danger long enough to realize that all the climatologist's predictions have proved to be grossly conservative. Global warming has progressed at a substantially faster pace than any of the official predictions that I have read.
If anything, the public should assume things are going to be more drastic and happen in less time while as many of the unknowns that can be, are pinned down.
I think there is reason to be suspicious of anyone who is disputing AGW at this late point in time. Its more likely a vested interest, rather than a personal opinion.