Climate scientist Michael Mann is facing fresh scrutiny over whether he falsified data in a report recommending a colleague for accreditation to a prestigious position.
Mann had been asked by Phil Jones, the scientist at the centre of Climategate, to help recommend him as a "fellow" of the American Geophysical Union (AGU).
Among the data considered by these peer review groups is what's known as an "H Index", which ranks scientists based on their work and citations. Phil Jones had a ranking of 62, on the face of it, but this included some studies done by another "Phil Jones" working as a biologist.
Climate Audit reports Jones did the decent thing and told Mann to downgrade his ranking from 62 to 52, but Mann responded saying he would "just go with the H=62", effectively giving Jones a higher ranking than he was entitled, so as to increase his chances of acceptance.
There is no evidence released yet that suggests Jones corrected him again, or detailing what Mann actually eventually filed, but the issue has now entered the public domain as official investigations into the work of Mann and Jones commence.
Mann had previously produced a fraudulent graph in support of claimed global warming, but his work was shot down by a congressional investigation headed by leading statistician Edward Wegman, and Wegman's findings were later supported, grudgingly, by the National Academy of Sciences.