by

Penn State knows how to look after its own. Avoiding difficult questions and clearing Michael Mann of anything. And this is just the latest in a string of so-called investigations into dodgy practices exposed by Climategate, all of which have, amazingly, found nothing wrong! How’s that for consistency?

The ABC gleefully reports:

American climate change scientist Michael Mann has been cleared of manipulating his research findings. The allegations arose in the ‘climategate’ scandal which erupted when emails between Dr Mann and other scientists were taken [er, leaked, more likely] from a computer at the University of East Anglia in Britain and posted on the internet. The Pennsylvania State University findings follow two other investigations in Britain effectively exonerating climate scientists accused of misconduct. [Whitewash, whitewash, whitewash] Dr Mann’s data adjustment procedures in particular were called into question when private email messages between him other scientists were posted on the internet. The Pennsylvania university received a number of complaints about its professor’s conduct and it launched two separate investigations in response. They looked broadly at whether Dr Mann had falsified, suppressed or destroyed data, or deviated from accepted research practices.

In a surprising display of balance, however, the ABC also quotes a view critical of the investigation:

But John Roskam, executive director of the Melbourne-based free-market think tank the Institute of Public Affairs, says questions still remain over Dr Mann’s research. “This was not an independent review – this was effectively the university examining itself and the result is entirely predictable,” he said. “The university was highly unlikely to be critical of one of its most high-profile academics who has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in research grants.” Mr Roskam says the four separate ‘climategate’ inquiries – two in Britain and now two in the US – are all compromised. “The reviews did not answer the questions about why data was missing; why data was not shared; why there hasn’t been a full and open, transparent process,” he said. “Unfortunately many people still think that these reviews and processes are part of a general lack of transparency about the whole climate change debate.” (source)

And Marc Morano sums up the whole shabby affair: