Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
This institution will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not
afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead.
—Thomas Jefferson, on the University of Virginia (December 27, 1820)
Though hardly surprising to those who had taken a hard, honest look at the matter, each of the
investigations launched in response to the climategate affair ultimately proved exculpatory. That
applied not just to me, but to the scientists of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit
(CRU), and indeed all of the scientists who were embroiled in the manufactured scandal, as well as
to the underlying science of climate change itself.
At the end of March 2010, the House of Commons Science and Technology select committee of
the UK Parliament issued its findings. The report noted that CRU's “analyses have been repeated and
the conclusions have been verified.”
1
It exonerated Phil Jones of the various allegations of scientific
misconduct against him, including those based on out-of-context quotations such as “hide the decline”
and “trick.” Even Nigel Lawson, the critic who had called for the investigation in the first place,
conceded that Jones's use of this terminology was entirely innocent.
2
While the report did give Jones
a minor slap on the wrist over issues involving making data available, it found that “the focus on CRU
and Professor Phil Jones, Director of CRU, in particular, has largely been misplaced” and that his
actions were “in line with common practice in the climate science community.” Next up was an
external review of CRU's scientific practices led by eminent geoscientist Lord Oxburgh. Reporting in
mid-April, the commission once again found no evidence in the work of CRU scientists or their
quality of their science was found to meet the highest standards. The only substantial criticism was
that CRU scientists could have collaborated more broadly with outside statistics experts. The report
denounced the attacks by climate change deniers in unusually strong terms.
Penn State, after four months of reviewing voluminous materials and interviewing numerous
other scientists and experts, issued its final investigation report on July 1.
4
It found “no substance to
the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann.” More specifically, it found that “Dr. Michael E. Mann
did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated
from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting
General, which has the final word in such matters, performed their own independent follow-up
investigation. Their determination: “finding no research misconduct or other matter raised … this
case is closed.”
6
Less than a week after Penn State reported its findings, the final of the CRU investigations was
