Climate Scientists cleared of malpractice in UEA's hacked emails inquiry

[Mulehead]

Researchers 'dedicated if slightly disorganised', but basic science was fair, finds inquiry commissioned by university. David Adam, evironment correspondent guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 14 April 2010 11.11 BST

The climate scientists at the centre of a media storm over emails released on the internet were disorganised but did not fudge their results, an independent inquiry into the affair reported today.

The inquiry, the second of three set up in the wake of the controversy, found "absolutely no evidence of any impropriety whatsoever", according to Lord Oxburgh, who led the investigation.

Instead, Oxburgh said, many of the criticisms and assertions of scientific misconduct were likely made by people "who do not like the implications of some the conclusions" reached by the climate experts.

He said the allegations made against the scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, including its director Phil Jones, were serious enough to end their careers if proven correct.

Oxburgh said: "Whatever was said in the emails, the basic science seems to have been done fairly and properly."

More at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/14/oxburgh-uea-cleared-malpractice

[unpossibles]

1. I'm sure the rightwing blogs will be firing off apologies and links to this any minute now

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

ok, sorry.

[Viking12]

3. ..and Sen Inhofe (ASS-OK) will retract his claim thjat its all a big hoax...

not

[Cha]

2. That's good! Thank you!

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. Report of the International Panel set up by the University of East Anglia to examine the research...

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/Report+of+the+Science+Assessment+Panel

...

Conclusions

1. We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it. Rather we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention. As with many small research groups their internal procedures were rather informal.


2. We cannot help remarking that it is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians. Indeed there would be mutual benefit if there were closer collaboration and interaction between CRU and a much wider scientific group outside the relatively small international circle of temperature specialists.


3. It was not the immediate concern of the Panel, but we observed that there were important and unresolved questions that related to the availability of environmental data sets. It was pointed out that since UK government adopted a policy that resulted in charging for access to data sets collected by government agencies, other countries have followed suit impeding the flow of processed and raw data to and between researchers. This is unfortunate and seems inconsistent with policies of open access to data promoted elsewhere in government.


4. A host of important unresolved questions also arises from the application of Freedom of Information legislation in an academic context. We agree with the CRU view that the authority for releasing unpublished raw data to third parties should stay with those who collected it.

...