Climategate: Michael Mann Cleared of Academic Misconduct (So Far)

Michael Mann is a climatologist at Penn State. Perhaps he is best known for his 'hockey stick' graph--a reconstruction of global temperatures over the last millennium, and he was prominent in the recent controversy over the stolen emails of the British Climatic Research Unit (CRU). Based on the many emails and inquiries received, the University conducted an official inquiry of academic misconduct.

The inquiry committee condensed the various emails down to four questions (allegations):

1. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to suppress or falsify data?

2. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4, as suggested by Phil Jones?

3. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any misuse of privileged or confidential information available to you in your capacity as an academic scholar?

4. Did you engage in, or participate 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?

After reviewing all emails from, to, or about Mann, as well as interviewing him and reviewing some of his own archived emails, the committee found "no substance" to the first three allegations. The inquiry committee judged that the fourth allegation should be investigated by "faculty peers from diverse fields" rather than the administrative committee.

Mann has thus been mostly cleared of academic misconduct, with the remaining allegation awaiting further investigation. More importantly for science, he has been cleared of falsifying data.

The Climategate controversy has generated a lot of heat online and in the media. Some commentators, particularly in the conservative media, speak as though it is established fact that these prominent climatologists not only acted poorly, but also falsified and manipulated data. As I wrote at the time, there seemed to be little evidence that there would be any significant change to the science based on the emails.

Given the prominence of the initial controversy and subsequent commentary, it is important that the public be made aware of this. (Expect cable news to be all over this...not.)

Further links:

Statement by Michael Mann

Inquiry Report (PDF)

---