RA-1O Final Investigation Report Involving Dr. Michael E, Mann The Pennsylvania State University June 4, 2010

Composition ofthe Investigatory Committee:
Sarah M. Assmann, Waller Professor Department ofBiology

Welford Castleman, Evan Pugh Professorand Eberly Distinguished Chair in Science Department ofChemistry and DepmtmentofPhysics Mary Jane Irwin, Evan Pugh Professor Department ofComputer Science and Electrical Engineering
Nina G. Jablonski, Department Head and Professor Department ofAnthropology

Fred W. Vondracek, Professor DepartmentofHuman Development and Family Studies

Research Integrity Officer:

Candice Yekel, Director ofthe Office for Research Protections Background ofthe alleged misconduct as described in the RAlO Inquiry Report:

On and about November 22, 2009, The Pennsylvania State University beganto receive
numerous communications (emails, phone calls and letters) accusing Dr. Michael E, Mann ofhaving engaged in acts, beginning in approximately 1998, that included manipulating data, destroying records and colluding to hampertheprogress ofscientific discourse around the issue ofanthropogenic global warming, These accusations were based on perceptions ofthe content ofthe emails stolen from a server at the Climatic Research Unit ofthe University ofEastAnglia in Great Britain as widely reported,

Giventhe sheervolume ofthe communications to Penn State, the similarity oftheir contentand the variety ofsources, which included University alumni, federal and state politicians, and others, many ofwhomhad had no relationship with Pel1l1 State, Dr. EvaJ. Pell, then SeniorVice President for Research and Dean ofthe Graduate School, was asked to examine the matter. The reason for having Dr. Pell examinethe matter was that the accusations, when placed in an academic context, could be construed as allegations of research misconduct, which would constitute a violation ofPenn State policy,

UnderThe Pennsylvania State University'spolicy, Research Administration Policy No, 10, (hereafter referred to as RA-I0), ResearchMisconduct is defined as:

Page 1of 19(1) fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or otherpracticesthat seriously deviate from acceptedpractices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research orotherscholarly activities; (2) callous disregard for requirements that ensure theprotection ofresearchers, human participants, orthe public; orfor ensuring the welfare oflaboratory animals; (3) failure to disclose significant financial and business interest as defined by Penn State Policy RA20, Individual Conflict of Interest; (4) failure to comply with other applicable legal requirements governing research or other scholarly activities.

RA-IO further provides that "researchmisconduct does not include disputes regarding honest error or honest differences in interpretations orjudgments ofdata, and is not intendedto resolve bonafide scientific disagreementordebate."

On November24, 2009, two days afterreceipt ofthe allegations, Dr. Pell initiated the process articulated in RA-1O by scheduling a meetingwith the Dean ofthe College of Earth and Mineral Sciences (Dr. William Easterling), the Associate Dean for Graduate Education and Research ofthe College ofEm1h and Mineral Sciences (Dr. Alan Scaroni), the Directorofthe Office for Research Protections (Ms. Candice Yekel), and the Head of the Department ofMeteorology (Dr. William Brune).

Atthis meeting, all were informed ofthe situation and ofthe decision to initiate an inquiry under RA-IO. Dr. Pell then discussed the responsibilities that each individual would have according to the policy. Dean Easterling recused himselffrom the inquiry due to a conflictofinterest. As the next administrator in the line ofmanagement for the college, Dr. Scm'oni was asked to take onDean Easterling's function in the ensuing inquiry.

The Inquiry Committee assigned to conductthe inquiry into the matter consisted ofDr. EvaJ. Pell, SeniorVice President for Research, Ms. Candice Yekel, Director ofthe Office for Research Protections, and Dr. Alan Scaroni, Associate Dean for Graduate Education and Research ofthe College ofEarth and Mineral Sciences. Dr. William Brune, Head ofthe DepartmentofMeteorology, was to serve in a consulting capacity for the Inquiry Committee. Dr. Henry C. Foley, then Dean ofthe College ofInformation Sciences and Technology, was added to the Inquiry Committee in an ex-officio role for the duration of2009, sincehe had beennamed to succeed Dr. Pell as the next Vice President for Research, beginningJanuary 1,2010.

Atthe time ofinitiation ofthe inquiry, no formal allegations accusing Dr. Mann of research misconduct had been submitted to any University official. Therefore, the emails and other communications were reviewed by Dr. Pell, and from these she synthesized the following four formal allegations. To be clear, these were not allegations that Dr. Pell put forth but rather her best effo11 to reduce to reviewable allegations the many different accusations thatwere received from pm1ies outside ofthe University. The four synthesized allegations were as follows:

Page 2 of 19I. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intentto suppress or falsify data?

2. Did you engage in, orparticipate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4,as suggested by Phil Jones?

3. Did you engage in, orparticipate in, directly or indirectly, any misuse ofprivileged or confidential information available to you in your capacity as an academic scholar?

4. Did you engage in, orparticipate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices withinthe academic community for proposing, conducting, orreporting research, or other scholarly activities?

On November 29, 2009, Dr. Pell and Dr. Foley met with Dr. Mann to inform him personallythathe had been accused ofresearch misconduct and that an inquiry under RA-1O would takeplace. On November 30, 2009, a letterwas delivered by Dr. Pell to Dr. Mann to notify him ofthese allegations and Dr. PeWs decisionto conduct an inquiry under RA-IO. The inquiry phase ofRA-IO was thereby formally initiated onNovember 30,2009.

From November 30 to December 14,2009, staffinthe Office for Research Protections culled through the 1073 files that contained emails or email strings that were purloined from a server at the University ofEastAnglia. A subsetofthe files containingemails or email strings was reviewed. This subset offiles included emails that were sent by Dr. Mann, were sentto Dr. Mann, were copied to Dr. Mann, ordiscussed Dr. Mann (but were neither addressed nor copied to him). In summary, the following were found:

206 files that contained emails or email strings that contained messageltext from Dr. Mann somewhere in the chain; 91 files that contained emails or emails strings that were received by Dr. Mann, but in which he did notparticipate; and 79 files that contained emails oremail strings that dealt with Dr. Mann, his work
orpublicationsbut that he neither authored norwas listed as copied.

From among these 376 files, the Inquiry Committee focused on 47 files that contained emails or email strings that were deemed relevant. On December 17, 2009, the Inquiry Committee (Pell, Scaroni, Yekel), Dr. Brune and Dr. Foley met to review the emails, the RA-1O inquiry process, and their respective activities. It was agreed that these individuals would meet again in early January and that they would use the time until that meeting to review the relevant information, including the above mentioned e-mails,journal articles, OP-ED columns, newspaper and magazine articles, the National Academy of Sciences report entitled "Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years," ISBN: 0- 309-66144-7 and various blogs on the internet.

Page 3 of 19On January 4, 2010, Dr. Foley, in his capacity as the new Vice President for Research and Dean ofthe Graduate School, becamethe convener ofthe Inquiry Committee as Dr. Pell had left the Universityto become the Under-Secretary ofScience for the Smithsonian Institution. On January 8, 2010, Dr. Foley convened the Inquiry Committee to discuss their thoughts on the evidencepresented in the emails and other publically available materials. Atthis meeting, it was decided that each Inquiry Committee member would send to Dr. Foley specific questions to be used by the Inquiry Committee during the interview ofDr. Mann. Duringthe interview, Dr. Foley would moderate the interview and ask each ofthe initial questions with follow-up questions coming from the other Inquiry Committeemembers.

On January 12,2010,the Inquiry Committee (Foley, Yekel, Scaroni) and Dr. Brune met withDr. Mann. Dr. Mann was asked to address the four allegations leveled against him and to provide answers to the fifteen additional questions that the Inquiry Committee had compiled. In an interview lasting nearly two hours, Dr. Mann addressed each ofthe questions and follow-up questions. Arecording was made ofthe interview and was later transcribed. The Inquiry Committee members asked occasional follow-up questions. Dr. Mann answered each question carefully:

• He explained the content and meaning ofthe emails about which the Inquiry Committee inquired;
• He stated that he had never falsified any data, nor had he had ever manipulated data to serve a givenpredetermined outcome;
• He stated that he neverused inappropriate influence in reviewing papers by other scientists who disagreed withthe conclusions ofhis science;
• He stated that he never deleted emails at the behest ofany other scientist, specifically including Dr. Phil Jones, and that he never withheld datawith the intention ofobstructing science; and
• He stated that he neverengaged in activities orbehaviors that were inconsistent with accepted academic practices.

On January 15,2010,Dr. Foley conveyed viaemail on behalfofthe Inquiry Committee
an additional request to Dr. Mann. Dr. Mann was asked to produce all emails related to the fourth IPCC report ("AR4"), the same emails that Dr. Phil Jones had suggested that he delete. On January 18,2010,Dr. Mannprovided a zip-archive ofthese emails and an explanation oftheir content. In addition, Dr. Mann provided aten page supplemental written responseto the matters discussed during his interview.

On January 22, 2010, the Inquiry Committee and Dr. Brune met again to review the evidence, including but not limited to Dr. Mann's answers to the Inquiry Committee's questions, both in the interview and in his subsequent submissions. Dr. Foley reviewed the relevant points ofhis conversation with Dr. Gerald North, a professor at Texas A&M University and the first author ofthe NAS 2006 report that included Dr. Mann's research
on paleoclimatology. Dr. Foley also relayed the sentiment and view of Dr. Donald Kennedy of Stanford University and the former editor of Science Magazine about the controversy currently swirling around Dr. Mann and some ofhis colleagues. Both were

Page 4 of 19very supportive of Dr. Mann and ofthe credibility of his science. Dr. Brune gave his opinions and suggestions for next steps of the process, and then was dismissed from fmther discussion pursuant to RA-1O policy role which was consult to the rest of the Inquiry Committee members.

On January 26, 2010, Dr. Foley convened the Inquiry Committee, along with University counsel, Mr. Wendell Courtney, Esq., in case issues ofprocedure arose.
After a careful review ofall written material, and information obtained from the purloined emails, the interview ofDr. Mann, the supplemental materials provided by Dr. Mann and all the information from other sources, the Inquiry Committee found as follows with respect to each allegation: Allegation 1: "Did you engage in, orparticipate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intentto suppress or falsify data? "

Decision 1: The Inquiry Committee determined there was no substance to this allegation and further investigation ofthis allegation was not warranted. Allegation 2: "Did you engage in, orparticipate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4, as suggested by Phil Jones?"

Decision 2: The Inquiry Committee determined there was no substance to this allegation and further investigation ofthis allegation was not warranted. Allegation 3: "Didyou engage in, orparticipate in, directly or indirectly, any misuse of privileged orconfidential information availableto you in your capacity as an academic scholar?"

Decision 3: The Inquiry Committee determinedthere was no substance to this allegation and further investigation ofthis allegation was not warranted. Allegation 4: "Did you engage in, orparticipate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, orreporting research or other scholarly activities?"

Decision 4: The Inquiry Committee determined that "giventhat information emerged in the form ofthe emails purloined from CRU in November 2009, which have raised questions in the public's mind about Dr. Mann's conductofhis research activity, given thatthis may be undermining confidence inhis findings as a scientist, and given that it may be undermining public trust in science in general and climate science specifically, an Investigatory Committee offaculty peers from diverse fields should be constituted under RA-I0to further considerthis allegation."

Page 5 of 19An Investigatory Committee of faculty members with impeccable credentials was appointed and asked to present its findings and recommendations to Dr. Henry C. Foley within 120 days ofbeing charged.

The charge to the RA-lO Investigatory Committee:

The Investigatory Committee was charged by Dr. Henry C. Foley, Vice President for Research, on March 4, 2010, as follows:

The Investigatory Committee's charge is to determine whether ornot Dr. Michael Mann engaged in, orparticipated in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices withinthe academic community for proposing, conducting, or reportingresearch or other scholarly activities.
Sources ofsupport for the related research or publications:

Dr. Mann's research has been sponsored by many different agencies including the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy and the National Oceanic and AtmosphereAdministration.

Documents available to the Investigatory Committee:

•



### • • • • 

### •

• •



### • • 376 files containing emails stolen from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) ofthe University ofEast Angliaand originally reviewed bythe Inquiry Committee Documents collected by the Inquiry Committee Documents providedby Dr. Mann atboththe Inquiry and Investigation phases Penn State University's RA-IO Inquiry Report House ofCommons Report HC387-I, March 31,2010 National Academy ofScience lettertitled, "Climate Change and the Integrity of Science" that was published in Science magazine on May 7, 2010 Information onthe peerreviewprocess for the National Science Foundation (NSF) Department ofEnergy's Guideto Financial Assistance Information onNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration'speer review process Information regarding the percentage ofNSF proposals funded Dr. Michael Mann's curriculum vitae

Interview process:
The interviews were audio-taped and verbatimtranscripts wereprepared. All interviewed individuals were provided an opportunity to reviewthe transcripts oftheir interviews for accuracy. Thetranscripts will be maintained in the Office for Research Protections as partofthe official record. Statements or information relevant to the Investigatory Committee's findings are noted in the paragraphs below. The Investigatory Committee interviewed the following individuals:

Page 6 of 19April 12, 2010: Dr. William Easterling, Dean, College ofEarth and Mineral Sciences, The PelIDsylvania State University April 14, 2010: Dr. Michael Mann, Professor, Department ofMeteorology, The Pennsylvania State University April 20, 2010: Dr. William Curry, Senior Scientist, Geology and Geophysics Department, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution April 20, 2010: Dr. Jerry McManus, Professor, Department ofEarth and Environmental Sciences, ColumbiaUniversity May 5, 2010: Dr. Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor, Department ofEarth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Summary ofluvestigatory Committee's Interview with Dr. Michael E. Mann, Professor, Department ofMeteorology, Penn State University

- April 14, 2010

On April 14, 2010, the RA-1O Investigatory Committee (Assmann, Castleman, Irwin, Jablonski, and Vondracek) and Candice Yekel interviewed Dr. Michael Mann. In advance ofthe interview, the Investigatory Committee prepared several questions focusing on whether Dr. Mann "engaged in, orparticipated in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for preparing, conducting, or reportingresearch or other scholarly activities." In addition to the prepared questions, Investigatory Committee members asked anumberoffollowup questions. Dr. Mann answered the questions in a detailed manner.
The first question was "Wouldyou pleasetell us whatyou consider in your field to be accepted, standard practice with regard to sharing data?" A follow-up question asked how Dr. Mann had dealt with requests for data that were addressed to him during the period covered by the stolen emails. Dr. Mann offered a briefhistorical perspective on the issue ofsharing data in his field, concluding with the observation that data are made generally available (e.g., in the NOAApublic database) after those scientists who obtained the data have had a chance to bethe first to publish findings based on the data. He noted that sometimes data are made available on a collegial basis to specific scientists before those who collected the datahavepublished their initial findings. Typically, this involves a request to not release the datato others until the data are made publically available by the scientists who obtained the data. Dr. Mann concluded his answerby statingthat he has always worked with data obtained by other scientists, and that when such datawere not already in the public domain, he made them available as soon as he was permitted to do
so by those who initially obtained the data.

Dr. Mann drew a distinction between actual data and intermediate datathat are produced
as part ofthe analytic procedures employed. He indicated that while such intermediate data may occasionallybe shared with colleagues, it is not standard practice to publish or make generally available this intermediate data (to whichhe and others refer to as "dirty laundry" in one ofthe purloined emails). Finally, he indicated that someone who wanted to reproduce his work would be able to independently reproduce this intermediate data and that, in fact, otherresearchers had done this.

Page 7 of 19The Investigatory Committee next inquired howhe constructed his source codes and what he considered to be accepted practice in his field for publishing source codes. Dr. Mann indicated that in his field ofstudy, in contrast with some other fields such as economics, publishing the source code was never standard practice until his work and that ofhis colleagues came underpublic scrutiny, resulting in public pressure to do so. He indicated thathe initially was reluctantto publish his source codes because the National Science Foundation had determined that source codes were the intellectual property ofthe investigator. Also, he developed his source codes using a programming language (FORTRAN 77) thatwas not likely to produce identical results when run on a computer system different from the one on which it was developed (e.g., different processor makes/models, different operating systems, different compilers, different compiler optimizations). Dr. Mann reported that since around 2000, he has been using a more accessibleprogramming style (MATLAB), and since then he has made all source codes available to the research community.

The next question was "Do you believe thatthe perceived hostility and perceived ulterior motives ofsome critics ofglobal climate science influenced your actions withregard to the peerreview process, particularly in relationto the papers discussed in the stolen emails?" Dr. Mann responded by affirming his beliefin the importance ofthe peer review process as a means ofensuring that scientifically sound papers are published, and not as ameans ofpreventingthe publication ofpapers that are contrary to one's views. I-Ie elaborated by stating that some ofthe emails regarding this issue dealt with his
concern (shared by other scientists, the publisher, and some members ofthe editorial board ofthejournal in question) thatthe legitimacy ofthe peerreviewprocess had been subverted.
Next, Dr. Mann was asked "Didyou ever, without first getting express permission from the original authors, forward to a third party an in-press or submitted manuscript on which you were not a co-author?" In response to this question, Dr. Mann first responded by saying thatto the best ofhis knowledge he had notdone so. He then clarified that he may have forwarded such a manuscript to a specific, close colleague, in the beliefthat permissionto do so had been implicit, based on his close collegial relationships with the paper's authors. An illustrative case ofsuch a circumstance would have been the manuscript by Wahl and Ammann, which Dr. Mann forwarded to Dr. Briffa. In response to afollow-up question, Dr. Mann asselied that suchjudgments about implied consent are quite typical in his field, butthey are made only as long as it is understood that such sharing would takeplace only among trusted colleagues who would maintainthe confidentiality ofthe manuscript.

The next question for Dr. Mann was posed as follows: "What is your reply to the email statements ofDr. McIntyre (a) that he had beenreferred to an incorrect version ofyour data at your FTP site (b) thatthis incorrectversion wasposted priorto his request and
was not formulated expressly for him and (c) thatto date, no source code or other evidence has beenprovided to fully demonstrate thatthe incorrect version, now deleted, did not infect some ofMann's and Rutherford's otherwork?" Dr. Mannresponded by

Page 8 of 19statingthat neither he, normany ofhis colleagues, put much reliability in the various accusations that Dr. McIntyre has made, and that, moreover, there is "no merit whatsoever to Mr. McIntyre's claims here." Specifically, Dr. Mann repeated that all data,
as well as the source codes requested by Dr. McIntyre, were in fact made available to him. All data were listed on Dr. Mann's FTP site in 2000, and the source codes were made available to Dr. McIntyre about a year afterhis request was made, in spite ofthe fact that the National ScienceFoundation had ruled that scientists were not required to do
so. The issue ofan "incorrectversion" ofthe data came about because Dr. McIntyre had requested the data (which were already available on the FTP site) in spreadsheet format, and Dr. Rutherford, early on, had unintentionally sent an incorrectly formatted spreadsheet.

In response to a couple offollow-up questions, Dr. Mann stressed that the stolen emails represent part ofa larger context ofactive communication among scientists, and that he remains on friendly terms with scientists with whom he has had ongoing, and sometimes heated, disagreements about scientific matters. He also commented that he and other scientists fear that the stolen emails will have achilling effecton the way scientists communicate with each other, partly because members ofthe public may not appreciate the lingo orjargon (e.g., "dirty laundry" or "trick") that scientists often use when communicatingwith each other abouttheir science.

At the conclusion ofthe interview, Dr. Mann indicated that he would be very happy to provide additional information ifthe Investigatory Committee felt that this would be helpful. Summary ofInvestigatory Committee Interview with Dr. William Easterling, Dean, College 

### ofEarth and Mineral Sciences, Penn State University

- 

### April 12, 2010

On April 12, 2010, the RA-lO Investigatory Committee (Assmann, Castleman, Irwin, Jablonski, and Vondracek) and Candice Yekel interviewed Dr. William Easterling, Dean ofthe College ofEarth and Mineral Sciences, Penn State University. The Investigatory Committee had a number ofprepared questions, starting with a requestto learn how Dr. Easterlingknew Dr. Mann. Dr. Easterling reported that he had known Dr. Mann for about six or seven years prior to his appointment at Penn State in 2008. In response to a question about when and howhe had become aware ofthe allegations against Dr. Mann, Dr. Easterling reported thatit was the week before Thanksgiving 2009, when he started receiving emails suggesting a connection betweenthe stolen East Anglia emails and Dr. Mann's work.

The next question for Dr. Easterling was posed as follows: "Inyourjudgment, are accepted and ethical research practices in scientific fields related to global climate change significantly different from such practices in other fields ofscientific inquiry?" Dr. Easterling's response to that questionwas "Absolutely not!" In a follow-up question, Dr. Easterling was asked whether he saw any difference between certain kinds of experimental scientific fields and observational ones like paleoclimatology. He responded by statingthat much ofwhatweknow about climate change is the result ofa combination

Page 9 of 19ofobservation and numerical modeling, making the classic idea offalsification ofa hypothesis, which may be applicable to a laboratory science, oflimited applicability in the study ofclimate change. Thus, eventhoughthere are a number ofhighly sophisticated, physically sound models that are used to analyze and predict various features ofthe earth's climate system, humanjudgments are invariably involved, and a certain amount ofsubjectivity is introduced.

Another follow-up question inquired aboutthe likely number ofdifferent statistical models that might be applicable to Dr. Mann's work. Dr. Easterling indicated that Dr. Mann and his colleagues wereprimarily interested in looking at historical data (which tend to be "noisy"), using a relatively small numberofstatistical models, such as principal components analysis, which has a long tradition in various sciences.

The next question addressed to Dr. Easterling was whether, in hisjudgment, Dr. Mann's work was very aggressive, very conservative, or somewhere in the middle inhow it pOltrayed global warming. Dr. Easterlingresponded by statingthat Dr. Mann'searly work showed a more dramatic upturn in warming, butthat his more recent work has led to the conclusion that the change has been slightly less dramatic. Moreover, Dr. Easterling added that Dr. Mann'sfindings have been replicated by independent teams of researchers.

Dr. Easterlingwas asked whether he knew ofany other investigations related to the stolenemails otherthan the University ofEast Anglia and Penn State University, and he responded that he was unaware ofany others.

The Investigatory Committee then questioned Dr. Easterling aboutvarious scientists in the field ofclimate science who might be interviewedbythe Investigatory Committee regarding their views ofwhatconstitutes accepted and ethical practice with regard to the conductofresearch in the field. The Investigatory Committee wanted a choice of scientists who had disagreed with Dr. Mann's findings as well as others who had agreed but who had not collaborated withDr. Mann orhis collaborators.

At the conclusion ofthe interview, Dr. Easterling offered to be available to the Investigatory Committeeifthe Investigatory Committee members thought thatthis would be helpful. Summary ofInvestigatory Committee Interview with Dr. William Curry, Senior Scientist, Geology and Geophysics Department, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

- April 20, 2010

On April 20, 2010, the RA-l0 Investigatory Committee (Assmann, Castleman, Irwin, Jablonski, and Vondracek) and Candice Yekel interviewed Dr. William Curry, Senior Scientist, Geology and Geophysics Department, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. The Investigatory Committeehad four prepared questions, but Investigatory Committee members were free to ask additional questions as well as follow-up questions as they saw fit.

Page 10 of 19The first question addressed to Dr. Curry was: "Wouldyou please tell us whatyou considerin your field to be accepted standard practice with regard to sharing data and unpublished manuscripts?" Withregard to sharing data, Dr. Curry indicated that standard practice is that once apublication occurs, the pertinentdata are shared via some electronic repository. He stated that not all researchers actually comply withthis practice, and that there may be special arrangements with the funding agency, orthejournal that publishes the research, that specify when dataneed to be made available to other researchers. 

### In Dr. Curry's case, for example, the National Science Foundation allows a two-year window during whichhe has exclusive rights to his data. Afterthat period he must make it available to others.

On the issue ofsharing unpublished manuscripts, Dr. Curry stated that ifthe manuscript
was accompanied by a request to keep it confidential, he would not share it with anyone; ifit was not accompanied by an explicit requestfor confidentiality, he might talk about it with colleagues but would notusually forward it.
Next, Dr. Curry was asked: "Wouldyou please briefly explain how codes are developed in the process ofevaluating data in your field, e.g., are these codes significantly different from published software packages? Then please tell us what you consider in yourfield to be accepted standard practice with regard to sharing codes." Dr. Curry reported that in his area, most codes are fairly basic and researchers use software packages to construct them. 

### I-Ie also reported that he was not aware ofany public archive for such codes, but that he was fairly certain that ifhe asked anotherresearcherto share such codes, he would most likely get them. He added that overall compliance with requests to share codes would probably be equal to the rate ofcompliance with requests for sharing data.
Next, Dr. Curry was asked to respond to the following: "Howdo the processes ofdata acquisition, analysis and interpretation in paleoclimatology affect practices ofdata sharing in the field? Are any ofthese processes unique to paleoclimatology?" Dr. Curry asked for clarification and was told thatthe question referred to whether the laborious and expensive way in which most data are collected in paleoclimatology had an effect on data sharing. He then responded that requests for raw data would be the exception rather than the rule, because transforming the raw data into usable information is labor intensive and difficult. Nevertheless, because ofNSF requirements, he would release all data after two years. He added that some scientists, however, do seekto maintain proprietary access to their data even aftertwo years. Finally, Dr. Curry was asked whetherhe wanted to share anything else withthe Investigatory Committee. 

### In his concluding comments to the Investigatory Committee, Dr. Curry noted that in the lastten years things have changed ratherrapidly with regard to sharing data and information. He reportedthat he has become more aware ofhowhe would be affected ifpeople started askinghim step-by-step details ofhis work, and that while he has always been diligent aboutdocumenting his work, ten years ago he would not have been able to document every single step in his analytical work. Thus, "accepted practices" are not fixed and are always evolving.

Page II of 19Summary ofInvestigatory Committee Interview with Professor Jerry McManus, Professor, Department ofEarth and Environmental Sciences, Columbia University

- April 20, 2010

On April 20, 2010, the RA-1O Investigatory Committee (Assmann, Castleman, Irwin, Jablonski, and Vondracek) and Candice Yekel interviewed Dr. Jerry McManus, Professor, Department ofEarth and Environmental Sciences, Columbia University. The Investigatory Committee had four prepared questions, but Investigatory Committee members were free to ask additional questions as well as follow-up questions as they saw fit.

To start the interview, Dr. McManus was asked to respond to the following question: "Would you please tell us what you consider in yourfield to be accepted standard practice with regard to sharing data [and]

...with regard to sharing unpublished manuscripts?" Dr. McManus responded by first drawing a distinction betweenpublished and unpublished data, noting, however, that there is arange ofstandard practices with regard to both. Nevertheless, the mode ofbehavior regarding unpublished data is to share "in a fairly limited fashion with individuals or groups who make specific requests and typically who are known to the researcher." Regardingpublished data, Dr. McManus indicated that standard practice is to make such data available through any ofa broad range ofmeans, including providing access to electronic repositories and institutional archives. Regarding the sharing ofunpublished manuscripts, Dr. McManus indicated that there is a broadrange oftypical and accepted behaviors, with such manuscripts commonly shared with a limited numberofcolleagues. In a follow-up question, it was inquired whether it may be considered standard practice to share an unpublishedmanuscript with others without getting express permissionto do so from the author. Dr. McManus responded by saying "no"to such sharing as standard practice, but allowingthat there is not necessarily only one acceptable practice, as permissionmay be given implicitly or explicitly. Without specific encouragement for wider distribution, however, it is generally understood, according to Dr. McManus, that unpublished papers are not intended for third-party distribution.

The next question was stated as follows: "Wouldyou please briefly explain how codes
are developed in theprocess ofevaluating data in your field (e.g., are these codes significantly different from published software packages)? Then please tell us whatyou consider in your field to be accepted, standard practice with regard to sharing codes." Dr. McManus indicated that most, butnot all, details ofsuch methods are usually reported when research is published, and that some ofthese details may be shared in a "somewhat ad hoc basis." Generally, however, the tendency is to "try to providethe conditions by which any research can be replicated

...." Dr. McManus agreed that generally, codes are treated the same way as any othermethod.

Page 12 of 19Summary ofInvestigatory Committee Interview with Dr. Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor, Department ofEarth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology

- May 5, 2010

On May 520I0, the RA-I0 Investigatory Committee (Assmann, Irwin, Jablonski, Vondracek; Dr. Castleman was not available) and Candice Yekel interviewed Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor, Department ofEarth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology. The Investigatory Committee had four prepared questions, but Investigatory Committee members were free to ask additional questions as well as follow-up questions as they saw fit.

Before the Investigatory Committee'squestioning began, Dr. Lindzen was given some general background information regardingthe process ofinquiry and investigation into allegations concerning Dr. Mann, with a focus on the particular allegation that is the subjectofthe currentreviewby the Investigatory Committee. Dr. Lindzen then requested, and was provided with, a briefsummary ofthe three allegations previously reviewed. When told that the first three allegations against Dr. Mann were dismissed at the inquiry stage ofthe RA-lO process, Dr. Lindzen'sresponse was: "It's thoroughly amazing. Imean these are issues thathe explicitly stated inthe emails. I'mwondering what's going on?"

The Investigatory Committeemembers did not respond to Dr. Lindzen's statement. Instead, Dr. Lindzen's attention was directed to the fourth allegation, and it was explained to him that this is the allegation whichthe Investigatory Committee is charged to address. Dr. Lindzen was then asked the first question formulated by the Investigatory Committee: "Wouldyou please tell us whatyou consider in your field to be accepted, standard practice with regard to sharing data, and the secondpart ofthe question is would you tell us what you considerin your field to be accepted, standard practice with regard to sharing unpublished manuscripts?"

Dr. Lindzen responded by stating that "withrespectto sharing data, the general practice is to have it available." With respect to unpublished manuscripts, he indicated that "those
are generally not made available unless the author wishes to." 

### In response to anumberof follow-up questions, Dr. Lindzen indicated that ifan unpublished manuscript is sent to a scientist by the author, it would be commonpractice to ask for permissionbefore sharing it with others; ifit was sent by someone else it would be commonpractice to ask ifthey had permissionto share thepaper. Accordingto Dr. Lindzen, a scientist might conclude that there is implicitpermissionto disseminate an unpublished paper only when the author made it clearthat the results may be disseminated.

The next question inquired whether, in Dr. Lindzen's view, climatologists normally make their codes (used in the analysis ofdata) available for otherpeopleto download. Dr. Lindzen responded by statingthat "itdepends." He elaborated, saying that ifthe codes
are very standard, it is unnecessary to share them, but ifit's an unusual analysis it would be his practice to make the codes available to anyone who wishes to check them. 

### In a follow-up question, Dr. Lindzen was asked whetherhe would have issues with people

Page 13 of 19running into compatibility issues or compilation issues. He responded by saying that even ifpeople "screwit up" orifyou have reservations about sharingcodes, "ifsomebody asks you how did you get this, you really should letthem know."

The next questions presented to Dr. Lindzen were as follows: "Howdo the processes of data acquisition, analysis, and interpretation inpaleoclimatology affect practices ofdata sharing in the field? Are any ofthese processes unique to paleoclimatology?" Dr. Lindzen indicated that he did not think thatthese processes are uniqueto paleoclimatology, and that since most ofthedata are acquired usingpublic funds, there is
no basis for investigators beingproprietary withtheir data. In response to a follow-up question, Dr. Lindzen acknowledged that priorto publication, scientists may have a variety ofreasons to keep things confidential, but afterpublication "there's an obligation to explain exactly how you gotthem, especially ifthey're controversial."
Standard ofproofused 

### by the Investigatory Committee: Preponderance a/the evidence (happenmore likely than not or 51% certainty). All committee votes are unanimous unless otherwise indicated.

Level ofintent considered 

### by the Investigatory Committee:

The Investigatory Committeeconsidered various levels ofintent in orderofincreasing severity from careless, to reckless, to knowingly, to intentional. These terms are defined
as follows:

• careless

- a reasonableperson would not have known betteror honest errorthis is not considered research misconduct. reckless

- a reasonable person should have known better. knowingly

- a reasonable person knewbetter but did it anyway. • intentional (purposejil1)

- areasonableperson knew better but did it anyway with the intentto deceive.

The level ofintentregardingthe specific allegation will be addressed below. Summary ofInvestigation:

The Investigatory Committee investigated the following potential acts ofmisconduct:

"DidDr. Michael Mann engage in, orparticipate in, directly orindirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices withinthe academic community for proposing, conducting, orreporting research or other scholarly activities?"

The Investigatory Committee was given access to 376 files thatcontained emails stolen from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) ofthe University ofEast Anglia. These emails
were either sent by Dr. Mann, sentto Dr. Mann, copied to Dr. Mann, ordiscussed Dr. Mann (but were neither addressed nor copied to him). The Investigatory Committee also

Page 14 of 19reviewed the documents collected by the Inquiry Committee, as well as the Inquiry Committee's findings and report. In addition, the Investigatory Committeereviewed a number ofdocuments provided by Dr. Mann in response to requests from both the Inquiry and Investigatory Committees. A number ofpublic documents were also made available to the Investigatory Committee, including a number ofeditorials, both pro and
con Dr. Mann, an open letter from 255 members ofthe National Academy ofSciences, published in Science magazine, May 7, 2010, and the full text ofthe British House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee report on "The disclosure ofclimate data from the Climatic Research Unit atthe University ofEast Anglia," which was published
on March 31, 2010.

In the course ofthe investigation, the Investigatory Committee interviewed Dr. Michael Mann, as well as his immediate supervisor, Dr. William Easterling, Dean ofthe College ofEarth and Mineral Sciences atthe Pennsylvania State University. DeanEasterling and Dr. David Verardo, National Science Foundation Program Director for Paleo Perspectives on Climate Change, agreed to suggestnames ofeminent scientists who might agree to be interviewed by the Investigatory Committee in its efforts to establish the range of"acceptedpractices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research orother scholarly activities." As previously described, the Investigatory Committee contacted, and subsequently interviewed, three eminent scientists from the field ofclimate research: Dr. William Curry, Senior Scientist, Geology and Geophysics Department, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution; Dr. Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor, Department ofEarth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology; and Dr. Jerry McManus, Professor, Department ofEarth and Environmental Sciences, ColumbiaUniversity.

Based on the documentary evidence and on information obtained from the various interviews, the Investigatory Committee first considered the question ofwhether Dr. Mann had seriously deviated from accepted practice inproposinghis research activities. First, the Investigatory Committeereviewed Dr. Mann's activities that involved proposals to obtain funding for the conduct ofhis research. Since 1998, Dr. Mannreceived funding for his research mainly from two sources: TheNational Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Both ofthese agencies have an exceedingly rigorous and highly competitive meritreviewprocess that represents
an almost insurmountable barrier to anyone who proposes research that does not meet the highestprevailing standards, both in terms ofscientific/technical quality and ethical considerations.

NOAA and NSF research grantproposals are both evaluated through similarly rigorous and transparentmerit review (peer review) processes. To illustrate, we describethe NSF review process, which has two stages. In Stage 1, proposals are sent out to several external experts for merit review (mail review) based on the two NSF reviewcriteria established by theNational Science Foundation Board

-- Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts. In Stage 2, the proposal and its external expertreviews (mail reviews) are taken to a 8-15 person external expertpanel and evaluated overa several day period (panel review). Panel reviewmembers are notthe same persons as the mail review members. In

Page 15 of 19Stage I, the external reviewers only see individual proposals and rate them on a 5-point scale in descending order from Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, and Poor. In Stage 2, the entirepanel (except those members who have a conflict ofinterest with the proposal)
see all the proposals inthe competition (usually about 140 proposals in the NSF program to which Dr. Mann has typically submitted his proposals) and rate them based on the
same two NSF criteria on the same rating scale, but at this stage they evaluate the proposals in comparison with all the otherproposals that were submitted. All reviews are then taken under advisement by the director ofthe particularNSF program to whichthe proposal was submitted, who then recommends whether aproject should be funded. The program director is guided by the expertreviews, butmay also takeprogrammatic balance and otherNSF criteriainto accountbefore making a final recommendation. The rate offunding varies by program, butrarely exceeds 25 percent.
The results achieved by Dr. Mann in the period 1999-2010, despite these stringent requirements, speak for themselves: He served as principal investigator or co-principal investigator on five NOAA-funded and four NSF-funded researchprojects. During the
sameperiod, Dr. Mann also served as co-investigator offive additional NSF-and NOAA-funded research projects, as well as on projects funded by the Department of Energy (DOE), the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and the Office ofNaval Research (ONR). This level ofsuccess in proposing research, and obtaining funding to conduct it, clearly places Dr. Mann amongthe most respected scientists in his field. Such success would not have been possible had he not metor exceeded the highest standards ofhis profession for proposing research.

The second part ofthe Investigatory Committee's charge was to investigate whether Dr. Mannhad engaged in any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for conductingresearch or other scholarly activities. One focus ofthe committee's investigationcentered on whether Dr. Mann had deviated from accepted practice with regard to sharing data and source codes with other investigators. First, the Investigatory Committee established thatDr. Mann has generally used data collected by others, a commonpractice in paleoclimatology research. Raw data used in Dr. Mann's field ofpaleoclimatology are laboriously collected by researchers who obtain
core drillings from the ocean floor, from coral formations, from polar ice orfrom glaciers, or who collect tree rings thatprovide climate information from the past millennium and beyond. Otherrawdata are retrieved from thousands ofweather stations around the globe. Almost all ofthe raw dataused in paleoclimatology are made publicly available, typically after the originators ofthe datahave had an initial opportunity to evaluatethe data and publish their findings. In some cases, small sub-sets ofdata may be protected by commercial agreements; in othercases some datamay have been released to close colleagues before the originators had time to consummate theirprerogative to have
a limited period (usually about two years) ofexclusivity; in still other cases there may be legal constraints (imposed by some countries) thatprohibitthe public sharing ofsome climate data. The Investigatory Committee established that Dr. Mann, in all ofhis published studies, precisely identifiedthe source(s) ofhis raw data and, whenever possible, made the data and or links to the data available to other researchers. These

Page 16 of 19actions were entirely in line with accepted practices for sharing data in his field of research.

With regard to sharing source codes used to analyze these raw climate data and the intermediate calculations produced by these codes (referred to as "dirty laundry" by Dr. Mann in one ofthe stolen emails) with other researchers, there appears to be a range of accepted practices. Moreover, there is evidence thatthese practices have evolved during the last decade toward increased sharing ofsource codes and intermediate data via authors' web sites orweb links associated withpublished scientificjournal articles. Thus, while it was not considered standardpractice ten years ago to make such informationpublicly available, mostresearchers in paleoclimatology are today prepared to share such information, in part to avoid unwarranted suspicion ofimproprieties in their treatment ofthe raw data. Dr. Mann's actual practices with regard to making source codes and intermediate datareadily available reflect, in all respects, evolvingpractices within his field. Dr. Mann acknowledged thatearly in his career he was reluctantto publish his source codes because the National Science Foundationhad determined that
source codes were the intellectual propelty ofthe investigator. Moreover, because he developed his source codes using a specific programming language (FORTRAN 77), these codes were not likelyto compile and run on computer systems different from the
ones on whichthey were developed (e.g., different processormakes/models, different operating systems, differentcompilers, different compiler optimizations). Since then, however, he has used a more accessible method for developing his source codes (MATLAB) and he has made all source codes, as well as intermediate data, available to the research community, thereby meeting and exceeding standard practices in his field. Moreover, most ofhis research methodology involves the use ofPrincipal Components Analysis, a well-established mathematical procedure that is widely used in climate research and in many otherfields ofscience. Thus, the Investigatory Committee concluded thatthe manner in which Dr. Mannused and shared source codes has been well within the range ofaccepted practices in his field.

The issue ofwhetherDr. Mann had engaged in any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for conductingresearch or other scholarly activities was examined bythe Investigatory Committee via a numberof additional means. When a scientist's research findings are well outsidethe range of findings published by other scientists examining the same or similarphenomena, legitimate questions may be raised about whetherthe science is based on accepted practices or whether questionable methods might have been used. Mostquestions about Dr. Mann's findings have been focused onhis early published workthat showed the "hockey stick"pattern ofclimate change. In fact, research published since then by Dr. Mann and by independentresearchers has shownpatterns similarto those first described by Dr. Mann, although Dr. Mann's more recent work has shown slightly less dramatic changes than those reported originally. In some cases, otherresearchers (e.g., Wahl & Ammann, 2007) have been able to replicate Dr. Mann's findings, usingthe publicly available data and algorithms. The convergence offindings by different teams of researchers, using different data sets, lends further credence to the fact that Dr. Mann's conduct ofhis research has followed acceptable practice within his field. Further support

Page 17 of 19for this conclusion may be found in the observation that almost all ofDr. Mann's work
was accomplishedjointly with other scientists. The checks and balances inherent in such
a scientificteam approach further diminishes chances that anythingunethical or inappropriate occurred in the conduct ofthe research.

Aparticularly telling indicator ofa scientist's standingwithinthe research community is the recognition that is bestowed by other scientists. Judged by that indicator, Dr. Mann's work, from the beginning ofhis career, has been recognized as outstanding. For example, he received the Phillip M. Orville Prize for outstandingdissertation in the earth sciences at Yale University in 1997. In 2002, he received an award from the Institute for Scientific Information for a scientificpaper (published with co-authors) that appeared in the prestigiousjournalNature; also in 2002, he co-authored apaperthatwonthe Outstanding Scientific Paper Award from the NOAA Office ofOceanic and Atmospheric Research, and ScientificAmericannamed him as one of50 leading visionaries in science and technology. In 2005, Dr. Mann co-authored a paper in the Journal of Climate that
won the John Russell Mather Paper award from the Association ofAmerican Geographers, and in the same year, the website "RealClimate.org" (co-founded by Dr. Mann) was chosen as one ofthetop 25 "Science and Technology" websites by Scientific American. In 2006, Dr. Mann was recognized with the American Geophysical Union Editors' Citation for Excellence in Refereeing (i.e., reviewingmanuscripts for GeophysicalResearch Letters). All ofthese awards and recognitions, as well as others not specifically cited here, serve as evidence that his scientific work, especially the conduct ofhis research, has from the beginning ofhis career beenjudged to be outstanding by a broad spectrum ofscientists. Had Dr. Mann's conduct ofhis research been outside the range ofaccepted practices, it would have been impossible for him to receive so many awards and recognitions, which typically involve intense scrutiny from scientists who mayormay not agree withhis scientific conclusions.

Thethird area ofinvestigation was to address whether Dr. Mann had engaged in any actions that seriously deviated from acceptedpractices within the academic community for reportingresearch or other scholarly activities. Dr. Mann'srecord ofpublication in peerreviewed scientificjournals offers compelling evidence thathis scientific work is highly regarded by his peers, thus offering de facto evidence ofhis adherence to established standards and practices regardingthe reporting ofresearch. To date, Dr. Mann is the lead author of39 scientific publications and he is listed as co-author on an additional 55 pUblications. The majority ofthese publications appeared in the most highly respected scientificjournals, i.e.,journalsthathave the mostrigorous editorial and peer reviews in the field. In practical terms, this means that literally dozens ofthe mosthighly qualified scientists in the world scrutinized and examined every detail ofthe scientific work done by Dr. Mann and his colleagues andjudged it to meet the high standards necessary for publication. Moreover, Dr. Mann's work on the Third Assessment Report (2001) ofthe IntergovernmentalPanelon Climate Change received recognition (along with several hundred other scientists) by being awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Clearly, Dr. Mann'sreporting ofhis researchhas been successful andjudgedto be outstanding by his peers. This would have been impossible had his activities in reporting his work been outside ofaccepted practices in his field.

Page 18 of 19One issue raised by some who read the stolen emails was whether Dr. Mann distributed privileged information to others to gain some advantage for his interpretation ofclimate change. Theprivileged information in question consisted ofunpublished manuscripts that
were sent to him by colleagues in his field. The Investigatory Committee determined that
none ofthe manuscripts were accompanied by an explicit requestto not share them with others. Dr. Mann believed that, onthe basis ofhis collegial relationship withthe manuscripts' authors, he implicitly had permissionto share them with close colleagues. Moreover, in each case, Dr. Mann explicitly urged the recipients ofthe unpublished manuscripts to first check withthe authors ifthey intended to use the manuscripts in any way. Although the Investigatory Committee determined that Dr. Mann had acted in good faith with respect to sharing the unpublished manuscripts in question, the Investigatory Committee also found that among the expelis interviewed by the Investigatory Committee there was arange ofopinionregarding the appropriateness ofDr. Mann's actions. Opinions ranged from one expert who contended that it is never acceptable to share an unpublished manuscript without first obtaining explicitpermission from the author(s) to do so, to another expert who felt that, when working with close colleagues, it is sometimes acceptable to do so by assuming that implicitpermission had been granted. The Investigatory Committee considers Dr. Mann's actions in sharing unpublished manuscripts with thirdparties, without first havingreceived express consent from the authors ofsuch manuscripts, to be careless and inappropriate. While sharing an unpublished manuscriptonthe basis ofthe author's implied consent may be an acceptable practice in thejudgment ofsome individuals, the Investigatory Committee believes the bestpractice in this regard is to obtain express consent from the authorbefore sharing an unpublished manuscript with third parties.

The Investigatory Committee would liketo note thatDr. Mann, after being questioned by the Investigatory Committee aboutthis issue, requested and received confirmationthat his assumption ofimplied consentwas correct from the author ofone ofthe papers in question. This "afterthe fact" communicationwas not considered by the Investigatory Committee in reaching its decision.
Conclusion ofthe Investigatory Committee as to whether research misconduct occurred:
The Investigatory Committee, after careful review ofall available evidence, determined that there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann, Professor, Department ofMeteorology, The Pennsylvania State University.

More specifically, the Investigatory Committee determined that Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nordid he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research, orother scholarly activities.

The decision ofthe Investigatory Committee was unanimous.

Page 19 of 19