A prominent US climate scientist at the centre of the 鈥渃limategate鈥� leaked email controversy has been virtually cleared of professional misconduct by an internal university inquiry.
of Penn State University featured regularly in the more than 1000 emails that were hacked from the University of East Anglia (UEA) in the UK last November. His emails and comments have since then featured in countless blogs and news articles. Some have claimed the emails reveal that mainstream climate scientists have massaged data in order to demonstrate that climate change is caused by human activities.
The scientists in the emails, including Mann, have also been accused of seeking to prevent the publication of sceptical research in academic journals.
Advertisement
Penn State University opened an inquiry into Mann鈥檚 behaviour in November, shortly after the emails were leaked into the public domain. After sifting through 1075 emails and focusing on 47 that were deemed relevant to public allegations of misconduct by Mann, the inquiry has, by and large, cleared his name.
Off the hook
The internal inquiry has found that Mann did not 鈥減articipate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data鈥�. (pdf).
Nor did he 鈥渄elete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data鈥� relating to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change鈥檚 2007 report. One email that has received much media attention was sent to Mann by Phil Jones, then director of the UEA鈥檚 Climatic Research Unit, on 29 May 2008. It asked Mann to delete some emails regarding the 2007 IPCC report.
In the months since the email leak, Mann has repeatedly said that he did not heed Jones鈥檚 request. Penn State鈥檚 inquiry confirmed this.
The report is not clear about whether Mann鈥檚 behaviour has harmed the public trust in science. It cites Penn State鈥檚 , which says faculty have an obligation to maintain high ethical standards in order to foster public trust in science. It then goes on to discuss the fallout from the email leak which, it says, may have polarised the public into two camps: one that believes the leak undermines climate science and another that does not.
鈥淎fter careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee could not make a definitive finding whether there exists any evidence to substantiate that Dr. Mann did engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that deviated from accepted practices within the academic community,鈥� reads the report. This final point will now be at the centre of a further investigation.
鈥淭his is very much the vindication I expected since I am confident I have done nothing wrong,鈥� Mann told 麻豆传媒. 鈥淚 fully support the additional inquiry which may be the best way to remove any lingering doubts.鈥�
