I really wonder if you read the article or not. This is not about disagreement or opinions. This is about fraud claims > with skeptics claiming Mann manipulate

I really wonder if you read the article or not. This is not about disagreement or opinions. This is about fraud claims > with skeptics claiming Mann manipulated data. Investigations by Penn State and others found no misuse of data by Mann, but his work continued to draw attacks, particularly from conservatives. As an example. You solved a problem and I see that you solution is wrong (whether I am correct or not ia irrelevant) I would say you are wrong because you did this and that. I will not say that you are wrong because you have cheated unless I have a proof that you actually cheated (i.e data manipulation)