After sifting through the e-mail, the panel divided the allegations into four categories:The fourth allegation will be considered by an investigative committee consisting of five Penn State professors. Christopher C. Horner at Big Government has examined the Penn State report and calls it a "whitewash."
Falsifying or suppressing data.
Deleting, concealing, or otherwise destroying e-mail associated with a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Misusing privileged or confidential information.
Deviating from accepted practices within the academic community.
The panelists concluded that there was "no credible evidence" to charge Mann on any of the first three allegations, but they did not have enough information to draw a conclusion on the fourth. The report did not explain what was meant by "deviating from accepted practices," though it questioned whether the statements in the exposed e-mail sullied the reputation of the university or of science in general.
My take-away, to spoil the ending for you, is that the panel revealed most of what we need to know about the ability of this internal inquiry to credibly assess charges of misfeasance, by limiting their evidentiary pursuit outside of select blogs and media reports to speaking with Mann, aided by a supportive NAS report (to the exclusion of the Wegman Committee report, inexplicable including for a factor cited, below) and one panel member interviewing ex parte two Mann supporters.He follows with a detailed analysis of the report. Read the whole thing.
In my opinion, by this approach they did not do, and will in hindsight not be deemed as having done, themselves or their institution any favors.
For your reference, the actual report is included below.
Findings_Mann_Inquiry -
No comments:
Post a Comment