Penn State Partially Clears Climate E-mail Professor

Michael Mann, one of the climate scientists implicated with the Climategate scandal, has been exonerated by a Penn State inquiry board of three of the four allegations levied against him. The panel was unable to procure definitive evidence that Professor Mann acted on requests from British scientist Phil Jones to delete research data, evade Freedom of Information requests, or manipulate research data. The panel would not exonerate Mann from allegations that he "seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community." A separate panel is being assembled by Penn State to focus on this specific allegation.

On the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, professor Phil Jones is not fairing nearly as well. Inquiries from both the British government and the University of East Anglia say that the emails are proof of "systematic attempts to block Freedom of Information requests." Jones also stands accused of manipulating scientific data at least three times over the course of his research: once concerning tree ring readings, another time in a study comparing land temperatures to ocean surface temperatures, and another time for his research into how cities affect climate readings.

In the third manipulation, Jones and an American researcher are implicated by emails of downplaying a city's effect on local temperature. This was supposedly done because climate monitoring devices in Asia that were originally built in rural areas have since been surrounded by booming cities. Jones and American researcher Wei-Chyung Wang allegedly downplayed the bustling city's effect on the increasing temperature readings from the climate monitoring stations. Investigation into the so-called "heat island" paper have found that the locations of some of the climate monitoring stations had been deleted or moved. As one of the only scientific papers of its kind, the conclusion that urban environments do not significantly affect the local climate has been used for years as reference material by the IPCC and other scientific bodies.

The IPCC is facing troubles of its own as Director Rajendra Pachauri receives renewed pressure to resign over his role in the Himalayan error by green groups and climate skeptics alike. While not personally responsible for ensuring that research was performed to support every position in the 3,000 page report, Pachauri is being criticized for how he handled the error when it was first uncovered last year. Last November, Pachauri claimed the Indian scientists who actually performed research on the Himalayan glaciers practitioners of "voodoo science" for coming to a conclusion that opposed what was contained in the IPCC report. Pachauri says that he was unaware that no research was done to substantiate the IPCCs position on the health of Himalayan glaciers. Pachauri rebuked journalists last December for their role in fueling climate skepticism.

After the Himalayan error made global headlines in January, Pachauri agreed to correct the IPCC report but would not personally apologize and fiercely defended contributions to the IPCC report that he calls "gray research." John Sauven, director of Greenpeace UK, says that Pachauri should step down immediately. "The IPCC needs to regain credibility. Is that going to happen with Pachauri? I don’t think so," said Sauven. "We need someone held in high regard who has extremely good judgment and is seen by the global public as someone on their side."

Despite the pressure, Pachauri responded that he has "no intention of resigning" and intends to remain in his post as the director of the IPCC until the next assessment report is completed sometime in 2014.