Independent U.K. inquiry into leaked e-mails from climate researchers faults scientists for lack of openness, but finds no evidence that they purposely skewed global warming data.
An independent inquiry into charges that British climate scientists cooked the books to suppress or distort evidence refuting global warming has largely exonerated the researchers. 
A five member review panel released its lengthy report earlier today. It is the third inquiry into the far-reaching controversy–stemming from the revelations contained in more than 1,000 e-mails–which showed scientists bitterly criticizing their critics and conniving ways to withhold information from global-warming deniers. The e-mails became public after a server at the University of East Anglia (which hosts a major Climate Research Unit) was hacked. The release of the e-mails created a world-wide controversy, leading to resignation of the CRU’s director and, more importantly, to far-reaching claims by critics that global warming is a fraud and a hoax. It has clearly been a factor in public opinion survey findings showing a substantial increase in public skepticism about whether climate change is actually occurring.
Speaking for the review panel, retired Scottish academic Muir Russell said the panel was charged with looking at the behavior of the Climate Research Unit scientists, to examine their “honesty, rigor, and openness.”
“Climate science is a matter of such global importance,” Russell said today, “that the highest standards of honesty, rigor, and openness are needed in its conduct. On the specific allegations made against the behavior of CRU scientists, we find that their rigor and honesty are not in doubt. In addition, we do not find that their behavior has prejudiced the balance of advice given to policy makers. In particular, we did not find any evidence of behavior that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) assessments.”
“But we do find,” Russell continued, “that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of the CRU scientists and the University of East Anglia, who failed to recognize not only the significance of statutory requirements but also the risk to the reputation of the University and, indeed, to the credibility of UK climate science.”
Click here to download the review panel’s report.
–CFJ
No comments yet.