Logo

**Tyche Shepherd** · 03-31-2010, 04:19 AM

This morning Parliament's Science and Technology committee published their report into the University of East Anglia Climate Research Units leaked emails.

The MPs have criticised the UEA for failing to respond to FOI request for climate data. They have also demanded further transparency in Climate Science Data.

The report goes further to clear Professor Jones, stating that the FOI failures were the responsibility of the UEA and not the CRU,They also have found no evidence of data Manipulation by Professor Jones and other members of the CRU , nor was there any evidence to suggest that Jones was subverting the peer review process, and that most of the data requested was already publicly available.

So basically the report concludes there was a serious failing in answering freedom of information requests but there is no evidence that challenges the scientific work of the CRU .

Full story here BBC News - Climate science must be more open, say MPs and the actual report is here http://www.publications.parliament.u...h/387/387i.pdf , Interview transcripts and written evidence is to be published later today.

There are still two other official investigations into the Climategate Incident proceeding which will report in the near future

EDIT: These are the conclusions from the report

Quote:

135. Consideration of the complaints and accusations made against CRU has led us to
three broad conclusions.

136. Conclusion 1 The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely
misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones’s refusal to share raw data
and computer codes, we consider that his actions were in line with common practice in
the climate science community. We have suggested that the community consider
becoming more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies. On
accusations relating to Freedom of Information, we consider that much of the
responsibility should lie with UEA, not CRU.

137. Conclusion 2 In addition, insofar as we have been able to consider accusations
of dishonesty—for example, Professor Jones’s alleged attempt to “hide the decline”—
we consider that there is no case to answer. Within our limited inquiry and the evidence
we took, the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. We have
found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus as
expressed by Professor Beddington, that “global warming is happening [and] that it is
induced by human activity”.184 It was not our purpose to examine, nor did we seek
evidence on, the science produced by CRU. It will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel
to look in detail into all the evidence to determine whether or not the consensus view
remains valid.

138. Conclusion 3 A great responsibility rests on the shoulders of climate science: to
provide the planet’s decision makers with the knowledge they need to secure our future.
The challenge that this poses is extensive and some of these decisions risk our standard
of living. When the prices to pay are so large, the knowledge on which these kinds of
decisions are taken had better be right. The science must be irreproachable.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Logo

Site Navigation