If Mann submitted misleading evidence when he was in receipt of public money, how is he different from, say, someone who submits false claims to Centrelink?

I do believe that is the thrust of Cucinelli's investigation.

Rhian wrote:

"Though I happen to believe his [Mann's] work is shonky, the best place to resolve the question of the quality of his work is through academic scrutiny and peer review,.."

Agreed.

Again I have to say the issue of scientists being allowed their say cannot be separated from the more general issue of free speech. Mann should not be allowed to silence his critics through the courts and quacks should not be be allowed to use the courts to silence Singh.

On the other hand, if Mann has indeed been fudging his data - and there is ample reason for thinking that is the case - then the Virginia State attorney is justified in investigating.

I am disgusted with the scientific community for not reacting more strongly to the "climategate" revelations and am not at all impressed with the British Parliamentary inquiry that found no malfeasance. There is NO legitimate use of the word "trick" juxtaposed with the word "hide" in relation to the display of data.

While I understand the need for academic freedom, I would be reluctant to shield them from the consequences of their statements.

For example, there was study linking vaccinations to autism, this caused a massive move away from vaccinating children with the consequence of many unnecessary deaths.

Subsequently many millions were spent with the result that no link with autism was found, and the doctor who gained a fortune from his road show against vaccinations, was shown to have deliberately published data skewed to his view point.

While more than a decade later, he has de-registered, he has still profited from the misery he has inflicted on many.

As what they say carries weight, they have a responsibility to at least consider the consequences of what they say.

Scientists must not be muzzled, nor must they be protected from criticism in the form of peer review or public scrutiny.

The thing that stuck out to me about the video 4referenced earlier is that the current version is a deliberate attempt to try and get Mann to sue (after threatening to do so over an earlier one). One of the groups involved claims to be trying to get full disclosure from Mann which apparently a law suit brought by him would provide.

Scientists should not be muzzled nor should they hide the data and methods used to support their claims.

R0bert