Fastest public servants in history
February 11th, 2010 by Warwick HughesThe Australian ABC Online news has reported:
Dr Michael Mann, a climatologist working for the Department of Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University, has been cleared of any wrongdoing, and had allegations of manipulating and hiding data dismissed.
Posted in News and Views | 8 Comments »
February 12th, 2010 at 10:44 am
Wow, what an exclusive story. How’s Francesco Franco doing?
February 12th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
How much money does Penn State Uni get for its contribution to climate research?
February 12th, 2010 at 7:47 pm
Why waste time with investigations when you KNOW what the answer is??
Predictable when you consider most of the research in Climate Science is run the same way!!
February 12th, 2010 at 10:48 pm
Of course they can do that since he did all that while he was at a different University!
At Penn State,all they have left was many errors,they quietly sidestepped.
Mann is finished as a credible contributor.
February 12th, 2010 at 11:37 pm
Warwick,
There are a few errors in this report noted here. ABC NEWSWATCH will be keeping a close eye on ABC climate change reporting. Make sure you check back to find out how ABC consumer affairs respond to the complaint.
MarcH
abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/2010/02/mann-report-makes-mistake-and-fails-to.html
February 12th, 2010 at 11:37 pm
Warwick,
There are a few errors in this report noted at the link below. ABC NEWS WATCH will be keeping a close eye on ABC climate change reporting-check out other examples of errors and mistakes. I am seeing a pattern emerging! Make sure you check back to find out how ABC consumer affairs respond to the complaint.
MarcH
abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/2010/02/mann-report-makes-mistake-and-fails-to.html
February 13th, 2010 at 4:44 pm
In contrast Still waiting any news of Dr Jones damaging BBC interview.
abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/2010/02/jones-bbc-interview-missing-in-action.html
February 19th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
My reading is that Mann was only partially cleared – the review panel held that the fourth charge – essentially conduct unbecoming – required a more detailed review.