Wednesday, July 07, 2010

"Climategate" Report Finds No Data Tampering

A second independent review of the conduct of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia has found no misconduct that could cast doubt on the underlying science of climate change. The New York Times has the story:
A British panel issued a sweeping exoneration on Wednesday of scientists caught up in the controversy known as Climategate, saying it found no evidence that they had manipulated their research to support preconceived ideas about global warming.
The key findings are presented in the report's executive summary starting on page 10, with emphasis in the original:
1.3 Findings

13. Climate science is a matter of such global importance, that the highest standards of honesty, rigour and openness are needed in its conduct. On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists,
we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.

14. In addition, we do not find that their behaviour has prejudiced the balance of advice given to policy makers. In particular,
we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.

16. On the allegation of withholding [land station] temperature data, we find that CRU was not in a position to withhold access to such data or tamper with it. We demonstrated that any independent researcher can download station data directly from primary sources and undertake their own temperature trend analysis.

21. We do not find that the way that data derived from tree rings is described and presented in IPCC AR4 and shown in its Figure 6.10 is misleading.
The review, which was conducted by an independent team of scientists, did find reason to criticize the conduct of the researchers at the CRU, but nothing that in any way undermines the IPCC's conclusions.

The first independent review,
released in April, found "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice." Once again, the furor over "Climategate" has failed to produce any reason to question the data on global warming.


Post a Comment

<< Home