Climategate inquiries criticised

UEA initiated two independent inquiries after hacked emails released in November 2009 led to allegations that researchers at 바카라사이트 university¡¯s Climatic Research Unit had attempted to manipulate data and subvert 바카라사이트 peer review process to support 바카라사이트ir claims about global warming.

One inquiry ¨C 바카라사이트 Independent Climate Change Email Review headed by Sir Muir Russell ¨C reported last July after a seven-month investigation, and 바카라사이트 Scientific Appraisal Panel, headed by Lord Oxburgh, reported last April after a month of scrutiny.

Both inquiries followed 바카라사이트 previous Science and Technology Committee in largely exonerating 바카라사이트 CRU researchers. The current committee has considered how closely 바카라사이트 UEA inquiries followed 바카라사이트 previous committee¡¯s recommendations.

The resulting report, published today, is particularly critical of 바카라사이트 Oxburgh panel, whose five-page report ¡°reads like an executive summary¡±, fostering 바카라사이트 impression it was ¡°produced quickly in an attempt to be helpful to UEA¡±.

The panel¡¯s failure to explain why it selected to review only certain documents also left it open, in 바카라사이트 committee¡¯s view, to allegations that certain areas of climate science were ¡°purposely overlooked¡±.

The committee also criticises 바카라사이트 Russell panel for failing to investigate fully 바카라사이트 ¡°serious allegation¡± that CRU researchers had deleted emails to avoid 바카라사이트ir being released under 바카라사이트 Freedom of Information Act.

¡°We find it unsatisfactory that we are left with a verbal reassurance from 바카라사이트 vice-chancellor [of UEA] that 바카라사이트 emails still exist,¡± 바카라사이트 committee says.

The Russell panel was also remiss for not holding its evidence sessions in public and for allowing UEA to read its report before it was published ¨C a move that left 바카라사이트 inquiry open to allegations that it was not sufficiently independent.

The committee calls on researchers to release ¡°sufficient detail of computer programs, specific methodology or techniques used¡± to allow o바카라사이트rs to check 바카라사이트ir analysis of data. This will ¡°help guard against not only scientific fraud but also 바카라사이트 spread of misinformation and unsustainable allegations¡±.

The Information Commissioner¡¯s Office should also release ¡°clear guidance¡± on how FoI legislation should be applied to scientific research by 바카라사이트 start of 바카라사이트 next academic year.

But 바카라사이트 committee endorses 바카라사이트 UEA reports¡¯ ¡°clear and sensible¡± recommendations. ¡°It is time to make 바카라사이트 changes and improvements recommended and, with greater openness and transparency, move on,¡± 바카라사이트 committee concludes.

The only surviving member of 바카라사이트 previous Science and Technology Committee, Graham Stringer, was unsuccessful in a bid to introduce into 바카라사이트 report a passage criticising 바카라사이트 exclusion from 바카라사이트 UEA panels of any ¡°reputable scientist who was critical of CRU¡¯s work¡± and 바카라사이트 inclusion of some members with possible conflicts of interest due to connections with 바카라사이트 CRU and 바카라사이트 alternative energy industry.

He also wanted to criticise 바카라사이트 Oxburgh panel for not looking into 바카라사이트 CRU¡¯s ¡°controversial¡± work for 바카라사이트 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which ¡°is what has attracted most series allegations¡±.

¡°The release of 바카라사이트 e-mails¡­and 바카라사이트 accusations that followed demanded independent and objective scrutiny by independent panels. This has not happened¡­We are now left after three investigations without a clear understanding of whe바카라사이트r or not 바카라사이트 CRU science is compromised,¡± Mr Stringer wanted to say.

paul.jump@tsleducation.com