Climate-Gate review: No tampering but more openness needed.
source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10538198.stm
-
-
- Mcellie
- added this
The review into if climate scientists at the University of East Anglia manipulated data is completed with Sir Muir Russell concluding the scientists did not manipulate or hide data.
However, there were criticisms into how more transparent and open the university could be when dealing with information requests. Russell commented on how CRU staff were defensive to requests or unhelpful. It is stated in the Guardian the inquiry found emails of requests might have been deleted "in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them"-Guardian. The paper also reported this resulted in the inquiry to conclude CRU's lack of transparency was risky for the university and other climate scientists.
"We find that CRU was not in a position to withhold access to such data or tamper with it," it says. "We demonstrated that any independent researcher can download station data directly from primary sources and undertake their own temperature trend analysis". Sir Muir commented: "So we conclude that the argument that CRU has something to hide does not stand up"[...]
The inquiry found no evidence that CRU researchers distorted the peer review process employed by scientific journals, or unduly influenced IPCC reports by ignoring research papers that contradicted their own findings.-BBC
The two articles seem to hint this could start a new process of scientific data and digital technology, to create more transparency and easier ways to share data with peers.
However, there were criticisms into how more transparent and open the university could be when dealing with information requests. Russell commented on how CRU staff were defensive to requests or unhelpful. It is stated in the Guardian the inquiry found emails of requests might have been deleted "in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them"-Guardian. The paper also reported this resulted in the inquiry to conclude CRU's lack of transparency was risky for the university and other climate scientists.
"We find that CRU was not in a position to withhold access to such data or tamper with it," it says. "We demonstrated that any independent researcher can download station data directly from primary sources and undertake their own temperature trend analysis". Sir Muir commented: "So we conclude that the argument that CRU has something to hide does not stand up"[...]
The inquiry found no evidence that CRU researchers distorted the peer review process employed by scientific journals, or unduly influenced IPCC reports by ignoring research papers that contradicted their own findings.-BBC
The two articles seem to hint this could start a new process of scientific data and digital technology, to create more transparency and easier ways to share data with peers.
-
- groups:
- Community, News and Politics, Green
-
- tags:
- Scandal, Climategate, inquiry, CRU, 1 more
