Pennsylvania State University began a formal investigation into a faculty member, Dr. Michael Mann to find whether his climate change research was conducted, reports Keith Johnson of the Wall Street Journal.
However, a preliminary inquiry into Mann's work cleared him of any wrong doing and of alleged conspiracy with other scientists to tweak climate figures that conflicted with his belief that the Earth is warming.
These inquiry results were reached even after his name appeared in over 375 of the emails that were hacked from the University of East Anglia's climate research unit.
Mann is also the creator of the infamous 'hockey stick' graph that showed a huge increase in temperatures, but that was discredited when Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the program that was used by Mann to get the graph.
They found that no matter what data was introduced into the program, the result was always a hockey stick graph, explains Richard Muller from MIT's Technology Review Online in his October 15th, 2004 article "Global Warming Bombshell".
Dr. Mann was a leading contributor to the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) sponsored reports, many of which have come under scrutiny after admissions by the IPCC that some of their climate predictions did not hold any scientific basis to support them.
The latest IPCC report to come under fire is one where information on disappearing mountain top ice were used from a mountaineering magazine's article and a student's dissertation, the UK Telegraph reported.
Skepticism on IPCC's credibility and on Mann's actual role in the climate change controversy is likely to rise in light of the growing inaccuracies these important government figures are responsible for.
A new inquiry will be undertaken by the school to ease public confidence in Dr. Mann's findings, which indicates that the University is anticipating another cleared ruling. But, many believe he should be thoroughly scrutinized due to the evidence at hand.
Comments
Interesting that he was cleared.
this article is factually inaccurate.
He as not cleared of data manipulation. This why they are moving onto phase 2 of the investigation!
Read the report. It clearly states this!
google climatedepot
No, he was cleared on the preliminary inquiry. Another one is on the way, but it looks pretty favorable for him... he is being investigated by his own peers, of course they'll most likely let him get out of it.
Ft lauderdale Science News Examiner
Space News Examiner
He was NOT totally cleared. Once and for all, we need a major national investigation of the entire scam from top to bottom by independent scientists and unbiased politicians. However, in today's world I don't know if there is an unbiased politician.
Anna did not read the entire Penn State statement.
Dear Skeptic,
I agree that he should be investigated by a higher institution. The evidence sure points to him being guilty.
Perhaps you are the one who didn't read my entire article...? Also, note that he indeed was cleared in a preliminary hearing and Penn State is sounding as if he will be cleared again in the second inquiry. No matter how much it looks like he is not clean. Those are his peers, after all.
Does the establishment not realize the emails are readily available and millions have read them. Do they not realize how detailed the fraud is outlined? The "trick to hide the decline" describes a 2 part process of mixing data sets and cherry picking data points. They even describe falsifying software code. They describe bullying scientists, manipulating data. Corruption is so arrogant, does media trying to support these criminals not know they will go down with them? People to media-
It's over! I know it happened fast and it hasn't sunk in yet. The game changed over night. But don't go down with these criminals, jump ship while you can.
Whatever errors may be found in climate research does not mean that man made climate change is not happening. A few errors made by individual scientists does not mean that the body of work is incorrect.
I have read the IPCC's AR4 and let's face it, they have not covered up the fact that the majority of their findings are only 'likely' to happen (66% to 90% chance), which means that there is a 10% to 34% chance that it isn't going to happen. To me that doesn't indicate a certainty, yet the politicians say that the science is settled. They tell the public that it is going to happen. I smell a rat and the biggest one was Al Gore who started this certainty racket with "An Inconvenient Truth" It's obvious to me that the politicians are the one's at fault here and we should send each of them a message at their next election. After all, it was politicians that created the IPCC and it is the politicians that pay the funding for these reports. How else are they going to convince the public that the billion dollar spend on climate change has been worth while, other than to say that it is a certainty? Stop the funding - stop the politicians who spport this - stop this lunacy.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!