Climatic Research Unit email controversy, continued ...
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Responses
Climatologists
Among the scientists whose emails were disclosed, the CRU's researchers said in a statement that the emails had been taken out of context and merely reflected an honest exchange of ideas.
Michael Mann, director of Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Center, said that sceptics were "taking these words totally out of context to make something trivial appear nefarious" and called the entire incident a careful, "high-level, orchestrated smear campaign to distract the public about the nature of the climate change problem".
Kevin E. Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research said that he was appalled at the release of the emails but thought that it might backfire against climate sceptics, as the messages would show "the integrity of scientists".
He also said that climate change sceptics had selectively quoted words and phrases out of context and that the timing suggested an attempt to undermine talks at the December 2009 Copenhagen global climate summit.
Tom Wigley, a former director of the CRU and now head of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, condemned the threats that he and other colleagues had received as "truly stomach-turning", and commented: "None of it affects the science one iota."
"Accusations of data distortion or faking are baseless."
"I can rebut and explain all of the apparently incriminating e-mails that I have looked at, but it is going to be very time consuming to do so."
In relation to the harassment that he and his colleagues were experiencing, he said: "This sort of thing has been going on at a much lower level for almost 20 years and there have been other outbursts of this sort of behaviour – criticism and abusive emails and things like that in the past."
"So this is a worse manifestation but it's happened before so it's not that surprising."
Other prominent climate scientists, such as Richard Somerville, called the incident a smear campaign.
David Reay of the University of Edinburgh said that the CRU "is just one of many climate-research institutes that provide the underlying scientific basis for climate policy at national and international levels."
"The conspiracy theorists may be having a field day, but if they really knew academia they would also know that every published paper and data set is continually put through the wringer by other independent research groups."
"The information that makes it into the IPCC reports is some of the most rigorously tested and debated in any area of science."
Stephen Schneider compared the political attacks on climate scientists to the witch-hunts of McCarthyism.
James Hansen said that the controversy has "no effect on the science" and that while some of the emails reflect poor judgment, the evidence for human-made climate change is overwhelming.
One of the IPCC's lead authors, Raymond Pierrehumbert of the University of Chicago, expressed concern at the precedent established by this incident: "(T)his is a criminal act of vandalism and of harassment of a group of scientists that are only going about their business doing science."
"It represents a whole new escalation in the war on climate scientists who are only trying to get at the truth..."
"What next?"
"Deliberate monkeying with data on servers?"
"Insertion of bugs into climate models?"
Another IPCC lead author, David Karoly of the University of Melbourne, reported receiving hate emails in the wake of the incident and said that he believed that there was "an organised campaign to discredit individual climate scientists".
Andrew Pitman of the University of New South Wales commented: "The major problem is that scientists have to be able to communicate their science without fear or favour and there seems to be a well-orchestrated campaign designed to intimidate some scientists."
In response to the incident, 1,700 British scientists signed a joint statement circulated by the UK Met Office declaring their "utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities".
Patrick J. Michaels, who was criticised in the emails and who has long faulted evidence pointing to human-driven warming, said: "This is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud".
He said that some emails showed an effort to block the release of data for independent review and that some messages discussed discrediting him by stating that he knew his research was wrong in his doctoral dissertation, "This shows these are people willing to bend rules and go after other people's reputations in very serious ways."
Judith Curry wrote that, in her opinion, "there are two broader issues raised by these emails that are impeding the public credibility of climate research: lack of transparency in climate data, and 'tribalism' in some segments of the climate research community that is impeding peer review and the assessment process".
She hoped that the affair would change the approach of scientists to providing their data to the public and their response to criticisms of their work.
She had herself learned to be careful about what to put in emails when a "disgruntled employee" made a freedom of information request.
Mann described these comments as "somewhat naive" considering that in recent years scientists had become much more open with their data.
He said that sceptics "will always complain about something else, want something more."
"Eventually, as we see, they've found a way to get access to private communications between scientists."
Hans von Storch, who also concurs with the mainstream view on global warming, said that the University of East Anglia (UEA) had "violated a fundamental principle of science" by refusing to share data with other researchers.
"They play science as a power game," he said.
On 24 November 2009 the university had stated that 95% of the raw station data was accessible via the Global Historical Climatology Network, and had been for several years.
They were already working with the Met Office to obtain permissions to release the remaining raw data.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_ ... ontroversy
LISTEN TO THE SCIENCE, PEOPLE!
Re: LISTEN TO THE SCIENCE, PEOPLE!
Climatic Research Unit email controversy, continued ...
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Responses
Scientific organisations
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group I issued statements that the assessment process, involving hundreds of scientists worldwide, is designed to be transparent and to prevent any individual or small group from manipulating the process.
The statement said that the "internal consistency from multiple lines of evidence strongly supports the work of the scientific community, including those individuals singled out in these email exchanges".
The American Meteorological Society stated that the incident did not affect the society's position on climate change.
They pointed to the breadth of evidence for human influence on climate, stating:
For climate change research, the body of research in the literature is very large and the dependence on any one set of research results to the comprehensive understanding of the climate system is very, very small.
Even if some of the charges of improper behavior in this particular case turn out to be true — which is not yet clearly the case — the impact on the science of climate change would be very limited.
The American Geophysical Union issued a statement that they found "it offensive that these emails were obtained by illegal cyber attacks and they are being exploited to distort the scientific debate about the urgent issue of climate change".
They reaffirmed their 2007 position statement on climate change "based on the large body of scientific evidence that Earth's climate is warming and that human activity is a contributing factor."
"Nothing in the University of East Anglia hacked e-mails represents a significant challenge to that body of scientific evidence."
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) reaffirmed its position on global warming and "expressed grave concerns that the illegal release of private emails stolen from the University of East Anglia should not cause policy-makers and the public to become confused about the scientific basis of global climate change."
"Scientific integrity demands robust, independent peer review, however, and AAAS therefore emphasised that investigations are appropriate whenever significant questions are raised regarding the transparency and rigour of the scientific method, the peer-review process, or the responsibility of individual scientists."
"The responsible institutions are mounting such investigations."
Alan I. Leshner, CEO of the AAAS and executive publisher of the journal Science, said: "AAAS takes issues of scientific integrity very seriously."
"It is fair and appropriate to pursue answers to any allegations of impropriety."
"It’s important to remember, though, that the reality of climate change is based on a century of robust and well-validated science."
TO BE CONTINUED ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_ ... ontroversy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Responses
Scientific organisations
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group I issued statements that the assessment process, involving hundreds of scientists worldwide, is designed to be transparent and to prevent any individual or small group from manipulating the process.
The statement said that the "internal consistency from multiple lines of evidence strongly supports the work of the scientific community, including those individuals singled out in these email exchanges".
The American Meteorological Society stated that the incident did not affect the society's position on climate change.
They pointed to the breadth of evidence for human influence on climate, stating:
For climate change research, the body of research in the literature is very large and the dependence on any one set of research results to the comprehensive understanding of the climate system is very, very small.
Even if some of the charges of improper behavior in this particular case turn out to be true — which is not yet clearly the case — the impact on the science of climate change would be very limited.
The American Geophysical Union issued a statement that they found "it offensive that these emails were obtained by illegal cyber attacks and they are being exploited to distort the scientific debate about the urgent issue of climate change".
They reaffirmed their 2007 position statement on climate change "based on the large body of scientific evidence that Earth's climate is warming and that human activity is a contributing factor."
"Nothing in the University of East Anglia hacked e-mails represents a significant challenge to that body of scientific evidence."
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) reaffirmed its position on global warming and "expressed grave concerns that the illegal release of private emails stolen from the University of East Anglia should not cause policy-makers and the public to become confused about the scientific basis of global climate change."
"Scientific integrity demands robust, independent peer review, however, and AAAS therefore emphasised that investigations are appropriate whenever significant questions are raised regarding the transparency and rigour of the scientific method, the peer-review process, or the responsibility of individual scientists."
"The responsible institutions are mounting such investigations."
Alan I. Leshner, CEO of the AAAS and executive publisher of the journal Science, said: "AAAS takes issues of scientific integrity very seriously."
"It is fair and appropriate to pursue answers to any allegations of impropriety."
"It’s important to remember, though, that the reality of climate change is based on a century of robust and well-validated science."
TO BE CONTINUED ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_ ... ontroversy
Re: LISTEN TO THE SCIENCE, PEOPLE!
Climatic Research Unit email controversy, continued ...
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Responses
UK Met Office
On 23 November 2009, a spokesman for the Met Office, the UK's national weather service, which works with the CRU in providing global temperature information, said that there was no need for an inquiry.
"The bottom line is that temperatures continue to rise and humans are responsible for it."
"We have every confidence in the science and the various datasets we use."
"The peer-review process is as robust as it could possibly be."
On 5 December 2009, however, the Met Office indicated its intention to re-examine 160 years of temperature data in the light of concerns that public confidence in the science had been damaged by the controversy over the emails.
The Met Office would also publish online the temperature records for over 1,000 worldwide weather stations.
It remained confident that its analysis would be shown to be correct and that the data would show a temperature rise over the past 150 years.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_ ... ontroversy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Responses
UK Met Office
On 23 November 2009, a spokesman for the Met Office, the UK's national weather service, which works with the CRU in providing global temperature information, said that there was no need for an inquiry.
"The bottom line is that temperatures continue to rise and humans are responsible for it."
"We have every confidence in the science and the various datasets we use."
"The peer-review process is as robust as it could possibly be."
On 5 December 2009, however, the Met Office indicated its intention to re-examine 160 years of temperature data in the light of concerns that public confidence in the science had been damaged by the controversy over the emails.
The Met Office would also publish online the temperature records for over 1,000 worldwide weather stations.
It remained confident that its analysis would be shown to be correct and that the data would show a temperature rise over the past 150 years.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_ ... ontroversy
Re: LISTEN TO THE SCIENCE, PEOPLE!
Climatic Research Unit email controversy, continued ...
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Responses
Other responses
Rajendra Pachauri, as chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, told the BBC in December 2009 that he considered the affair to be "a serious issue" and that they "will look into it in detail".
He later clarified that the IPCC would review the incident to identify lessons to be learned and rejected suggestions that the IPCC itself should carry out an investigation.
In a series of emails sent through a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) listserv, apparently forwarded outside the group by an unknown person, scientists discussing the "Climategate" fallout considered launching advertising campaigns, widening their public presence, pushing the NAS to take a more active role in explaining climate science and creating a nonprofit to serve as a voice for the scientific community.
A paper by Reiner Grundmann used a limited account of the events to discuss norms of scientific practice in relation to two science ethics approaches, the Mertonian norms as of Robert K. Merton, and Roger Pielke Jr.'s concept of honest brokering in science policy interactions.
Sources for the paper were chosen for accessibility, emphasising "critical accounts".
TO BE CONTINUED ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_ ... ontroversy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Responses
Other responses
Rajendra Pachauri, as chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, told the BBC in December 2009 that he considered the affair to be "a serious issue" and that they "will look into it in detail".
He later clarified that the IPCC would review the incident to identify lessons to be learned and rejected suggestions that the IPCC itself should carry out an investigation.
In a series of emails sent through a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) listserv, apparently forwarded outside the group by an unknown person, scientists discussing the "Climategate" fallout considered launching advertising campaigns, widening their public presence, pushing the NAS to take a more active role in explaining climate science and creating a nonprofit to serve as a voice for the scientific community.
A paper by Reiner Grundmann used a limited account of the events to discuss norms of scientific practice in relation to two science ethics approaches, the Mertonian norms as of Robert K. Merton, and Roger Pielke Jr.'s concept of honest brokering in science policy interactions.
Sources for the paper were chosen for accessibility, emphasising "critical accounts".
TO BE CONTINUED ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_ ... ontroversy
Re: LISTEN TO THE SCIENCE, PEOPLE!
Climatic Research Unit email controversy, continued ...
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Inquiries and reports
Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.
The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged by the end of the investigations.
However, the reports urged the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future, and to regain public confidence following this media storm, with "more efforts than ever to make available all their supporting data – right down to the computer codes they use – to allow their findings to be properly verified".
Climate scientists and organisations pledged to improve scientific research and collaboration with other researchers by improving data management and opening up access to data, and to honour any freedom of information requests that relate to climate science.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_ ... ontroversy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Inquiries and reports
Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.
The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged by the end of the investigations.
However, the reports urged the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future, and to regain public confidence following this media storm, with "more efforts than ever to make available all their supporting data – right down to the computer codes they use – to allow their findings to be properly verified".
Climate scientists and organisations pledged to improve scientific research and collaboration with other researchers by improving data management and opening up access to data, and to honour any freedom of information requests that relate to climate science.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_ ... ontroversy
Re: LISTEN TO THE SCIENCE, PEOPLE!
Climatic Research Unit email controversy, continued ...
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Inquiries and reports
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
On 22 January 2010, the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee announced it would conduct an inquiry into the affair, examining the implications of the disclosure for the integrity of scientific research, reviewing the scope of the independent Muir Russell review announced by the UEA, and reviewing the independence of international climate data sets.
The committee invited written submissions from interested parties, and published 55 submissions that it had received by 10 February.
They included submissions from the University of East Anglia, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the Institute of Physics, the Royal Society of Chemistry, the Met Office, several other professional bodies, prominent scientists, some climate change sceptics, several MEPs and other interested parties.
An oral evidence session was held on 1 March 2010.
The Science and Technology Select Committee inquiry reported on 31 March 2010 that it had found that "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact".
The emails and claims raised in the controversy did not challenge the scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity".
The MPs had seen no evidence to support claims that Jones had tampered with data or interfered with the peer-review process.
The committee criticised a "culture of non-disclosure at CRU" and a general lack of transparency in climate science where scientific papers had usually not included all the data and code used in reconstructions.
It said that "even if the data that CRU used were not publicly available — which they mostly are — or the methods not published — which they have been — its published results would still be credible: the results from CRU agree with those drawn from other international data sets; in other words, the analyses have been repeated and the conclusions have been verified."
The report added that "scientists could have saved themselves a lot of trouble by aggressively publishing all their data instead of worrying about how to stonewall their critics."
The committee criticised the university for the way that freedom of information requests were handled, and for failing to give adequate support to the scientists to deal with such requests.
The committee chairman Phil Willis said that the "standard practice" in climate science generally of not routinely releasing all raw data and computer codes "needs to change and it needs to change quickly".
Jones had admitted sending "awful emails"; Willis commented that "[Jones] probably wishes that emails were never invented," but "apart from that we do believe that Prof. Jones has in many ways been scapegoated as a result of what really was a frustration on his part that people were asking for information purely to undermine his research."
In Willis' view this did not excuse any failure to deal properly with FOI Act requests, but the committee accepted that Jones had released all the data that he could.
It stated: "There is no reason why Professor Jones should not resume his post."
"He was certainly not co-operative with those seeking to get data, but that was true of all the climate scientists".
The committee was careful to point out that its report had been written after a single day of oral testimony and would not be as in-depth as other inquiries.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_ ... ontroversy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Inquiries and reports
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
On 22 January 2010, the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee announced it would conduct an inquiry into the affair, examining the implications of the disclosure for the integrity of scientific research, reviewing the scope of the independent Muir Russell review announced by the UEA, and reviewing the independence of international climate data sets.
The committee invited written submissions from interested parties, and published 55 submissions that it had received by 10 February.
They included submissions from the University of East Anglia, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the Institute of Physics, the Royal Society of Chemistry, the Met Office, several other professional bodies, prominent scientists, some climate change sceptics, several MEPs and other interested parties.
An oral evidence session was held on 1 March 2010.
The Science and Technology Select Committee inquiry reported on 31 March 2010 that it had found that "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact".
The emails and claims raised in the controversy did not challenge the scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity".
The MPs had seen no evidence to support claims that Jones had tampered with data or interfered with the peer-review process.
The committee criticised a "culture of non-disclosure at CRU" and a general lack of transparency in climate science where scientific papers had usually not included all the data and code used in reconstructions.
It said that "even if the data that CRU used were not publicly available — which they mostly are — or the methods not published — which they have been — its published results would still be credible: the results from CRU agree with those drawn from other international data sets; in other words, the analyses have been repeated and the conclusions have been verified."
The report added that "scientists could have saved themselves a lot of trouble by aggressively publishing all their data instead of worrying about how to stonewall their critics."
The committee criticised the university for the way that freedom of information requests were handled, and for failing to give adequate support to the scientists to deal with such requests.
The committee chairman Phil Willis said that the "standard practice" in climate science generally of not routinely releasing all raw data and computer codes "needs to change and it needs to change quickly".
Jones had admitted sending "awful emails"; Willis commented that "[Jones] probably wishes that emails were never invented," but "apart from that we do believe that Prof. Jones has in many ways been scapegoated as a result of what really was a frustration on his part that people were asking for information purely to undermine his research."
In Willis' view this did not excuse any failure to deal properly with FOI Act requests, but the committee accepted that Jones had released all the data that he could.
It stated: "There is no reason why Professor Jones should not resume his post."
"He was certainly not co-operative with those seeking to get data, but that was true of all the climate scientists".
The committee was careful to point out that its report had been written after a single day of oral testimony and would not be as in-depth as other inquiries.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_ ... ontroversy
Re: LISTEN TO THE SCIENCE, PEOPLE!
Climatic Research Unit email controversy, continued ...
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Inquiries and reports
Science Assessment Panel
The report of the independent Science Assessment Panel was published on 14 April 2010 and concluded that the panel had seen "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit."
It found that the CRU's work had been "carried out with integrity" and had used "fair and satisfactory" methods.
The CRU was found to be "objective and dispassionate in their view of the data and their results, and there was no hint of tailoring results to a particular agenda."
Instead, "their sole aim was to establish as robust a record of temperatures in recent centuries as possible."
The panel commented that it was "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."
It found that although the CRU had not made inappropriate use of statistical methods, some of the methods used may not have been the best for the purpose, though it said that "it is not clear, however, that better methods would have produced significantly different results."
It suggested that the CRU could have done more to document and archive its work, data and algorithms and stated that the scientists were "ill prepared" for the amount of public attention generated by their work, commenting that "as with many small research groups their internal procedures were rather informal."
The media and other scientific organisations were criticised for having "sometimes neglected" to reflect the uncertainties, doubts and assumptions of the work done by the CRU.
The UK Government's policy of charging for access to scientific data was described as "inconsistent with policies of open access to data promoted elsewhere."
The panel was also stated that "Although we deplore the tone of much of the criticism that has been directed at CRU, we believe that this questioning of the methods and data used in dendroclimatology will ultimately have a beneficial effect and improve working practices."
It found that some of the criticism had been "selective and uncharitable" and critics had displayed "a lack of awareness" of the difficulties of research in this area.
Speaking at a press conference to announce the report, the panel's chair, Lord Oxburgh, stated that his team had found "absolutely no evidence of any impropriety whatsoever" and that "whatever was said in the emails, the basic science seems to have been done fairly and properly."
He said that many of the criticisms and allegations of scientific misconduct had been made by people "who do not like the implications of some of the conclusions" reached by the CRU's scientists.
He said that the repeated FOI requests made by climate change sceptic Steve McIntyre and others could have amounted to a campaign of harassment, and the issue of how FOI laws should be applied in an academic context remained unresolved.
Another panel member, Professor David Hand, commended the CRU for being explicit about the inherent uncertainties in its research data, commenting that "there is no evidence of anything underhand – the opposite, if anything, they have brought out into the open the uncertainties with what they are dealing with."
At the press conference, Hand also commented on the well publicised 1998 paper produced in the United States by scientists led by Michael E. Mann, saying that the hockey stick graph it showed was a genuine effect, but he had an "uneasy feeling" about the use of "inappropriate statistical tools" and said that the 1998 study had exaggerated the effect.
He commended McIntyre for pointing out this issue.
Mann subsequently told The Guardian that the study had been examined and approved in the US National Academies of Science North Report, and described Hand's comment as a "rogue opinion" not meriting "much attention or credence".
The UEA's vice-chancellor, Edward Acton, welcomed the panel's findings.
Describing its report as "hugely positive", he stated that "it is especially important that, despite a deluge of allegations and smears against the CRU, this independent group of utterly reputable scientists have concluded that there was no evidence of any scientific malpractice."
He criticised the way that the emails had been misrepresented, saying that "UEA has already put on record its deep regret and anger that the theft of emails from the University, and the blatant misrepresentation of their contents as revealed both in this report and the previous one by the Science and Technology Select Committee, damaged the reputation of UK climate science."
The UEA issued a statement in which it accepted that "things might have been done better."
It said that improvements had already been undertaken by the CRU and others in the climate science community and that the University would "continue to ensure that these imperatives are maintained."
It later emerged that the Science Assessment Panel was not assessing the quality but instead the integrity of the CRU's science.
Phil Willis described this a "sleight of hand" and was not what the Parliamentary Committee he had chaired had been led to believe.
There were also questions about the selection of publications examined by the panel.
Lord Oxburgh said that Acton had been wrong to tell the Science and Technology Select Committee in March that his inquiry would look into the science itself.
"I think that was inaccurate," Oxburgh said.
"This had to be done rapidly."
"This was their concern."
"They really wanted something within a month."
"There was no way our panel could evaluate the science."
TO BE CONTINUED ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_ ... ontroversy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Inquiries and reports
Science Assessment Panel
The report of the independent Science Assessment Panel was published on 14 April 2010 and concluded that the panel had seen "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit."
It found that the CRU's work had been "carried out with integrity" and had used "fair and satisfactory" methods.
The CRU was found to be "objective and dispassionate in their view of the data and their results, and there was no hint of tailoring results to a particular agenda."
Instead, "their sole aim was to establish as robust a record of temperatures in recent centuries as possible."
The panel commented that it was "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."
It found that although the CRU had not made inappropriate use of statistical methods, some of the methods used may not have been the best for the purpose, though it said that "it is not clear, however, that better methods would have produced significantly different results."
It suggested that the CRU could have done more to document and archive its work, data and algorithms and stated that the scientists were "ill prepared" for the amount of public attention generated by their work, commenting that "as with many small research groups their internal procedures were rather informal."
The media and other scientific organisations were criticised for having "sometimes neglected" to reflect the uncertainties, doubts and assumptions of the work done by the CRU.
The UK Government's policy of charging for access to scientific data was described as "inconsistent with policies of open access to data promoted elsewhere."
The panel was also stated that "Although we deplore the tone of much of the criticism that has been directed at CRU, we believe that this questioning of the methods and data used in dendroclimatology will ultimately have a beneficial effect and improve working practices."
It found that some of the criticism had been "selective and uncharitable" and critics had displayed "a lack of awareness" of the difficulties of research in this area.
Speaking at a press conference to announce the report, the panel's chair, Lord Oxburgh, stated that his team had found "absolutely no evidence of any impropriety whatsoever" and that "whatever was said in the emails, the basic science seems to have been done fairly and properly."
He said that many of the criticisms and allegations of scientific misconduct had been made by people "who do not like the implications of some of the conclusions" reached by the CRU's scientists.
He said that the repeated FOI requests made by climate change sceptic Steve McIntyre and others could have amounted to a campaign of harassment, and the issue of how FOI laws should be applied in an academic context remained unresolved.
Another panel member, Professor David Hand, commended the CRU for being explicit about the inherent uncertainties in its research data, commenting that "there is no evidence of anything underhand – the opposite, if anything, they have brought out into the open the uncertainties with what they are dealing with."
At the press conference, Hand also commented on the well publicised 1998 paper produced in the United States by scientists led by Michael E. Mann, saying that the hockey stick graph it showed was a genuine effect, but he had an "uneasy feeling" about the use of "inappropriate statistical tools" and said that the 1998 study had exaggerated the effect.
He commended McIntyre for pointing out this issue.
Mann subsequently told The Guardian that the study had been examined and approved in the US National Academies of Science North Report, and described Hand's comment as a "rogue opinion" not meriting "much attention or credence".
The UEA's vice-chancellor, Edward Acton, welcomed the panel's findings.
Describing its report as "hugely positive", he stated that "it is especially important that, despite a deluge of allegations and smears against the CRU, this independent group of utterly reputable scientists have concluded that there was no evidence of any scientific malpractice."
He criticised the way that the emails had been misrepresented, saying that "UEA has already put on record its deep regret and anger that the theft of emails from the University, and the blatant misrepresentation of their contents as revealed both in this report and the previous one by the Science and Technology Select Committee, damaged the reputation of UK climate science."
The UEA issued a statement in which it accepted that "things might have been done better."
It said that improvements had already been undertaken by the CRU and others in the climate science community and that the University would "continue to ensure that these imperatives are maintained."
It later emerged that the Science Assessment Panel was not assessing the quality but instead the integrity of the CRU's science.
Phil Willis described this a "sleight of hand" and was not what the Parliamentary Committee he had chaired had been led to believe.
There were also questions about the selection of publications examined by the panel.
Lord Oxburgh said that Acton had been wrong to tell the Science and Technology Select Committee in March that his inquiry would look into the science itself.
"I think that was inaccurate," Oxburgh said.
"This had to be done rapidly."
"This was their concern."
"They really wanted something within a month."
"There was no way our panel could evaluate the science."
TO BE CONTINUED ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_ ... ontroversy
Re: LISTEN TO THE SCIENCE, PEOPLE!
Climatic Research Unit email controversy, continued ...
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Inquiries and reports
Pennsylvania State University
Pennsylvania State University announced in December 2009 it would review the work of Michael E. Mann, in particular looking at anything that had not already been addressed in the 2006 North Report review by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences which had investigated Mann's "hockey stick graph" studies and found some faults with his 1998 methodology but agreed with the results which had been reaffirmed by later studies using different methods.
In response, Mann said he would welcome the review.
The inquiry committee determined on 3 February 2010 that there was no credible evidence Mann suppressed or falsified data, destroyed emails, information and/or data related to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, or misused privileged or confidential information.
The committee did not make a definitive finding on the final point of inquiry – "whether Dr Mann seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities".
The committee said that the earlier NAS inquiry had found "that Dr Mann’s science did fall well within the bounds of accepted practice", but in light of the newly available information this question of conduct was to be investigated by a second panel of five prominent Penn State scientists from other scientific disciplines.
The second Investigatory Committee reported on 4 June 2010 that it had "determined that Dr Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community."
Regarding his sharing unpublished manuscripts with colleagues on the assumption of implied consent, it considered such sharing to be "careless and inappropriate" without following the best practice of getting express consent from the authors in advance, though expert opinion on this varied.
It said that his success in proposing research and obtaining funding for it, commenting that this "clearly places Dr Mann among the most respected scientists in his field."
"Such success would not have been possible had he not met or exceeded the highest standards of his profession for proposing research."
Mann's extensive recognitions within the research community demonstrated that "his scientific work, especially the conduct of his research, has from the beginning of his career been judged to be outstanding by a broad spectrum of scientists."
It agreed unanimously that "there is no substance" to the allegations against Mann.
Mann said he regretted not objecting to a suggestion from Jones in a 29 May 2008 message that he destroy emails.
"I wish in retrospect I had told him, 'Hey, you shouldn't even be thinking about this,'" Mann said in March 2010.
"I didn't think it was an appropriate request."
Mann's response to Jones at the time was that he would pass on the request to another scientist.
"The important thing is, I didn't delete any emails."
"And I don't think [Jones] did either."
TO BE CONTINUED ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_ ... ontroversy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Inquiries and reports
Pennsylvania State University
Pennsylvania State University announced in December 2009 it would review the work of Michael E. Mann, in particular looking at anything that had not already been addressed in the 2006 North Report review by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences which had investigated Mann's "hockey stick graph" studies and found some faults with his 1998 methodology but agreed with the results which had been reaffirmed by later studies using different methods.
In response, Mann said he would welcome the review.
The inquiry committee determined on 3 February 2010 that there was no credible evidence Mann suppressed or falsified data, destroyed emails, information and/or data related to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, or misused privileged or confidential information.
The committee did not make a definitive finding on the final point of inquiry – "whether Dr Mann seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities".
The committee said that the earlier NAS inquiry had found "that Dr Mann’s science did fall well within the bounds of accepted practice", but in light of the newly available information this question of conduct was to be investigated by a second panel of five prominent Penn State scientists from other scientific disciplines.
The second Investigatory Committee reported on 4 June 2010 that it had "determined that Dr Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community."
Regarding his sharing unpublished manuscripts with colleagues on the assumption of implied consent, it considered such sharing to be "careless and inappropriate" without following the best practice of getting express consent from the authors in advance, though expert opinion on this varied.
It said that his success in proposing research and obtaining funding for it, commenting that this "clearly places Dr Mann among the most respected scientists in his field."
"Such success would not have been possible had he not met or exceeded the highest standards of his profession for proposing research."
Mann's extensive recognitions within the research community demonstrated that "his scientific work, especially the conduct of his research, has from the beginning of his career been judged to be outstanding by a broad spectrum of scientists."
It agreed unanimously that "there is no substance" to the allegations against Mann.
Mann said he regretted not objecting to a suggestion from Jones in a 29 May 2008 message that he destroy emails.
"I wish in retrospect I had told him, 'Hey, you shouldn't even be thinking about this,'" Mann said in March 2010.
"I didn't think it was an appropriate request."
Mann's response to Jones at the time was that he would pass on the request to another scientist.
"The important thing is, I didn't delete any emails."
"And I don't think [Jones] did either."
TO BE CONTINUED ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_ ... ontroversy
Re: LISTEN TO THE SCIENCE, PEOPLE!
Climatic Research Unit email controversy, continued ...
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Inquiries and reports
Independent Climate Change Email Review
First announced in December 2009, a British investigation commissioned by the UEA and chaired by Sir Muir Russell, published its final report in July 2010.
The commission cleared the scientists and dismissed allegations that they manipulated their data.
The "rigour and honesty" of the scientists at the Climatic Research Unit were found not to be in doubt.
The panel found that they did not subvert the peer review process to censor criticism as alleged, and that the key data needed to reproduce their findings was freely available to any "competent" researcher.
The panel did rebuke the CRU for their reluctance to release computer files, and found that a graph produced in 1999 was "misleading," though not deliberately so as necessary caveats had been included in the accompanying text.
It found evidence that emails might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them, though the panel did not ask anyone at CRU whether they had actually done this.
At the conclusion of the inquiry, Jones was reinstated with the newly created post of Director of Research.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_ ... ontroversy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Inquiries and reports
Independent Climate Change Email Review
First announced in December 2009, a British investigation commissioned by the UEA and chaired by Sir Muir Russell, published its final report in July 2010.
The commission cleared the scientists and dismissed allegations that they manipulated their data.
The "rigour and honesty" of the scientists at the Climatic Research Unit were found not to be in doubt.
The panel found that they did not subvert the peer review process to censor criticism as alleged, and that the key data needed to reproduce their findings was freely available to any "competent" researcher.
The panel did rebuke the CRU for their reluctance to release computer files, and found that a graph produced in 1999 was "misleading," though not deliberately so as necessary caveats had been included in the accompanying text.
It found evidence that emails might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them, though the panel did not ask anyone at CRU whether they had actually done this.
At the conclusion of the inquiry, Jones was reinstated with the newly created post of Director of Research.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_ ... ontroversy
Re: LISTEN TO THE SCIENCE, PEOPLE!
Climatic Research Unit email controversy, continued ...
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Inquiries and reports
United States Environmental Protection Agency report
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had issued an "endangerment finding" in 2009 in preparation for climate regulations on excessive greenhouse gases.
Petitions to reconsider this were raised by the states of Virginia and Texas, conservative activists and business groups including the United States Chamber of Commerce, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the coal company Peabody Energy, making claims that the CRU emails undermined the science.
The EPA examined every email and concluded that there was no merit to the claims in the petitions, which "routinely misunderstood the scientific issues", reached "faulty scientific conclusions", "resorted to hyperbole", and "often cherry-pick language that creates the suggestion or appearance of impropriety, without looking deeper into the issues."
In a statement issued on 29 July 2010, EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said the petitions were based "on selectively edited, out-of-context data and a manufactured controversy" and provided "no evidence to undermine our determination."
"Excess greenhouse gases are a threat to our health and welfare."
The EPA issued a detailed report on issues raised by petitioners and responses, together with a fact sheet, and a "myths versus facts" page stating that "Petitioners say that emails disclosed from CRU provide evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate data."
"The media coverage after the emails were released was based on email statements quoted out of context and on unsubstantiated theories of conspiracy."
"The CRU emails do not show either that the science is flawed or that the scientific process has been compromised."
"EPA carefully reviewed the CRU emails and found no indication of improper data manipulation or misrepresentation of results."
TO BE CONTINUED ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_ ... ontroversy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Inquiries and reports
United States Environmental Protection Agency report
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had issued an "endangerment finding" in 2009 in preparation for climate regulations on excessive greenhouse gases.
Petitions to reconsider this were raised by the states of Virginia and Texas, conservative activists and business groups including the United States Chamber of Commerce, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the coal company Peabody Energy, making claims that the CRU emails undermined the science.
The EPA examined every email and concluded that there was no merit to the claims in the petitions, which "routinely misunderstood the scientific issues", reached "faulty scientific conclusions", "resorted to hyperbole", and "often cherry-pick language that creates the suggestion or appearance of impropriety, without looking deeper into the issues."
In a statement issued on 29 July 2010, EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said the petitions were based "on selectively edited, out-of-context data and a manufactured controversy" and provided "no evidence to undermine our determination."
"Excess greenhouse gases are a threat to our health and welfare."
The EPA issued a detailed report on issues raised by petitioners and responses, together with a fact sheet, and a "myths versus facts" page stating that "Petitioners say that emails disclosed from CRU provide evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate data."
"The media coverage after the emails were released was based on email statements quoted out of context and on unsubstantiated theories of conspiracy."
"The CRU emails do not show either that the science is flawed or that the scientific process has been compromised."
"EPA carefully reviewed the CRU emails and found no indication of improper data manipulation or misrepresentation of results."
TO BE CONTINUED ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_ ... ontroversy