August 22, 2011 
The NSF OIG has concluded its review and has found no evidence that any of the claims of research misconduct against climate scientist Michael Mann had any basis in fact.
Here is the text from the document, which you can read at this link:
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS
CLOSEOUT MEMORANDUM
We fully examined both the University Inquiry and Investigation Reports. Although the Inquiry Report dismissed three of the four allegations, we examined each de novo under the NSF Research Misconduct Regulation. That regulation, consistent with the policy of the Office of Science and Technology Polici, defines research misconduct as plagiarism, fabrication, and falsification (45 CFR § 689.1 ).
.
Based on our review of both University reports and all material we received and reviewed on the matter, we were satisfied that the University adequately addressed its Allegations 3 and 4 (misusing privileged information and serious deviation from accepted practices) identified in the Inquiry Report. We also determined that these allegations were not issues covered under our Research Misconduct Regulation.
We next considered the University’s second Allegation, related to the emails. We reviewed the emails and concluded that nothing contained in them evidenced research misconduct within the definition in the NSF Research Misconduct Regulation. The University had been provided an extensive volume of emails from the Subject and determined that emails had not been deleted. We found no basis to conclude that the emails were evidence of research misconduct orthat they pointed to such evidence. We concluded that the University adequately addressed its second Allegation.
Regarding the University’s first Allegation (data falsification), however, we concluded thatthe University did not adequately review the allegation in either its inquiry or investigation processes. In particular, we were concerned that the University did not interview any of the experts critical of the Subject’s research to determine if they had any information that mighfsupport the allegation. Therefore, we initiated our own investigation under the NSF Research Misconduct Regulation. Pursuant to that regulation, we did not limit our review to an allegation of data falsification. Rather, we examined the evidence in relation to the definition of research misconduct under the NSF Research Misconduct Regulation.
and their conclusion:
Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct, as defined under the NSF Research Misconduct Regulation, we are closing this investigation with no further action. [my emphasis]
Desmog Blog covers this, as does Rabett Run and Climate Progress.
You’d think this matter would have been closed long ago, but denialists cares nowt about the facts, only the spin.
I will post the retractions and apologies from various climate “skeptics” and deniers as they come pouring in.
/sarcasm
ETA:
As Andrew Revkin points out on Dot Earth, when the IG was first announced, FAUX News trumpeted this, stating it “will be the first time that climate studies here will be scrutinized by an independent government organization with the skill and tools to investigate effectively.”
Still waiting for the news report finally admitting that there was no “there” there in the claims about Mann.
The Policy Lass 
“denialists cares nowt” may that is newt…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp_l5ntikaU Monty Python summarizes well
OMG we could discuss things with only cultural references like Monty Python sketches and Hitchhikers’s Guide to the Galaxy and Seinfeld…
Maybe the Post-Modernists were right after all…
Nah.
🙂
Wasn’t that the plot of a Star Trek: Next Generation episode?
Note that these NSF reviewers are obviously science-illiterate lawyers… shades of Eric “Clouseau” May. It seems the “experts critical of the Subject’s research” they interviewed, which the University did not, were McIntyre and (shudder) Wegman! I mean, the word “expert” has a very specific meaning, and this it is not.
And then, the climategate emails “reasonably” caused some individuals to suspect foul play… I suppose reasonable people can differ on whether this is dumb or malicious.
Hmm… and then… no “direct” evidence, no “sufficient” evidence… innuendo. They ain’t got nutting.
I have to qualify and retract the previous a bit: I checked, and indeed the OIG is a separate unit independent from the science part of NSF, and populated by lawyers.
Like the boss, one Allison Lerner, who has a law degree and a Bachelor of Arts; utter muggles the lot of them.
Given this, it’s surprising they didn’t make any worse bloopers than what I pointed out. Babes in the wood on the science, they couldn’t take sides or join the “conspiracy” if their lives depended on it…
The good news I guess is that investigations don’t come any more independent than this. Worth rubbing in.
…and of course it is precisely this spotless innocence on the science that attracts predators like Inhofe. Like so many sociopaths, he got blindsided by having no mental model for honesty. Serves him right 🙂
“Suspicious timing” says a Mr Watts (who he?)
😉
In unrelated news, Charles Monnett was moved from one limbo to another (‘changed limboes’ — is that proper English?)
I see issues of rule of law here, that should not be allowed to disappear under the carpet. Mann was informed of what he was accused of, as was his right. For all we know, Monnett’s accusers are still frantically fishing for anything that might stick.
Anybody want to bet that the NSF finding will cause Virginia Attorney General Cuccinelli to call off his ‘investigation’?