Climate Researchers Cleared of Malpractice

It's too soon to know whether it will quelch the debate over the existance of climate change but an inquiry has cleared climate researchers of malpractice in an affair that became popularly known as "climate-gate."

The University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit became embroiled in controversy last year when climate change skeptics, using more than 1,000 e-mails stolen from the center, charged that scientists had tampered with data to exaggerate the threat of global warming.

The inquiry followed a review of 11 scientific papers published by the center. It concluded Wednesday it found "absolutely no evidence of any impropriety."

The review did not analyze the correctness of the conclusions, but gave the scientific processes at Climatic Research Unit a ``clean bill of health.''

This marked the second victory for the scientists, whose work at the CRU was challenged after private emails were hacked and published on the Internet. The emails wound up being published on the Internet before the opening of a United Nations conference on the climate in Copenhagen last December.

Last month, the Science and Technology Committee of the House of Commons similarly concluded that the content of the emails did not suggest an attempt to hide information that ran counter to climate change theories.

"We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it," the panel wrote in its report. "Rather we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention. As with many small research groups their internal procedures were rather informal."

Science Assessment Panel Report

In what might be construed as a mild criticism, the panel, chaired by former government adviser Ronald Oxburgh, suggested that the researchers adjust their routines and work more closely with professional statisticians. The UAE responded by allowing that it saw "the sense in engaging more fully with the wider statistics community to ensure that the most effective and up-to-date statistical techniques are adopted and will now consider further how best to achieve this."

Another review of the affair has yet to issue its findings.

[AaronHuertas]

I love how the reaction to this from contrarians is to keep declaring everything a conspiracy. Every time an investigation has looked into this, from Factcheck.org to the AP to academic reviews, they have found no evidence of any data manipulation. A lot of global warming contrarians are living in an information universe of their own creation online and are basically unreachable by independent, credible evidence.

I hope CBS's national newscast follows up on their initial reporting on this topic, which suggested their might be something wrong with the evidence. Their audience deserves to know the results of this investigation.

Aaron Huertas
Press Secretary
Union of Concerned Scientists

[jschmidt27]

The damage has been done. Did some scientists feel other scientists opinions and research should not have been published and worked to stop the publication of the opposing research? Did data get left out because it didn't fit the conclusion that was wanted? Is the famous hockey stick graph accurate? Have these questions been answered? Science needs to be open taking into consideration all views. The conclusions have been tainted by this controversy and I don't know how you can rectify that unless really neutral parties review the evidence. And I don't mean the groups that have promoted climate change from the start.

[troutfishyman]

jschmidt27

Science is a self-correcting process. There are no "neutral parties" to step in and sort things out. Other scientists will do this as time goes by. But it is interesting to note that the evidence for AGW grows stronger every year, not weaker. This is the opposite of what one would expect if the basic science was flawed.

[jschmidt27]

Let's see the organization that had the scientists investigated itself and found nothing wrong. Wow! What a surprise. And of course the House of Commons investigation wouldn't find a university in the UK wrong. This is hardly a neutral investigation. The problem is whether the climate change facts are based on science or not, the whole matter now has a big question mark because of the scientists who were pushing their own theories against some skeptics. The world opinion jury is still out on this as the emails released show an attempt to exclude scientific investigation that was different than the CRU was pushing. Scientific research needs to be an open process that doesn't exclude other opinions.If the evidence is correct, it should be able to stand on it's own. The scientists in charge will not be trusted again.

[tsigili]

Geez.....imagine that. Anyone who denies climate change, has their head in the sand.