I understand Mann has moved on, but some of the others haven’t.

All those who have published and are still at the same institutions should be accountable, and the minute Mann publishes again on this subject, he should be held to the standards of his current employers.

I wonder if that includes any broadcasts, writings, or indeed speeches to Congress?

Problem? Taxpayer funded research
Solution? Getting rid of government isn’t.
Problem? Who are making all the noise?
Answer: Tax payer funded non workers?

Solution? I need to ask? Already?

institutions are very reluctact to grasp the nettle of scientific misconduct, especially when the scientist is a “superstar” and federal funding might be imperilled

…and also when the study doesn’t have perceived “life or death” implications.

Aaaahhh,

got it.

As Steve and I would recognise, that is the same as moving from one company “structure” to “another”.

Legally out of reach for the moment, out of sight, never.

Mann has changed institutions twice since the Hockey Stick (is this what they mean by climate science “moving on”?), but as you can see from the case of Dr Chandra, institutions are very reluctact to grasp the nettle of scientific misconduct, especially when the scientist is a “superstar” and federal funding might be imperilled.

For all those climate scientists who have refused to publicly archive all data, fully publish all methods, withdraw papers which are derivative.

The things that motivate academics are the same as everyone else, and they include fear and greed.

The fear of public repudiation, and the loss of their academic tenure are powerful motivators.

I urge everyone who has the time to complain to the various academic institutions these “scientists” work for.

Hold their feet to the fire.

Kennedy shouldn’t need anyone to tell him he screwed up. He ought to be able to figure that one out all by himself. And then resign.

"Science Editor-in Chief Donald Kennedy says he has been nervous about the impact of the stem cell scandal on his journal. He says he expected a negative impact, but there’s been no drop in submission of papers. "We’re not getting letters saying ‘you screwed up,’" he says."

"JACS (J. Am. Chem. Soc.) Editor-in-chief Peter J. Stang…"It is tough to discover falsification of data."…"We rely on the integrity of individuals.""

"But the nature of science itself ensures self-correction, Stang says. It usually happens after publication, when other scientists attempt to reproduce the work."

"The more that research results submitted to a journal are spectacular or unexpected "the more careful an editor has to be," Bard (Allen Bard, former editor of JACS) says. "There are papers we turned down because we couldn’t get corroborating data. I think it’s the editor’s burden to get this material and get it to the reviewers.""