And yet another independent review of the so-called 'Climategate' scandal clears the Academics at East Anglia University Climate Research Unit (CRU).
CNN: 'Climategate' Not Dishonest
An independent report released Wednesday into the leaked "Climategate" e-mails found no evidence to question the "rigor and honesty" of scientists involved.
NO EVIDENCE
Wow, well this should really close the book on this, because we all no that global warming deniers and wingnuts, when presented with objective analysis are quick to accept the truth.
Kumbaya, my friends.
The full report is here (PDF, 160 pages). I do not have the time to read the whole thing but I have looked at the Executive Summary and also the CNN article. So let me highlight a few things. Let me add the disclaimer they put in the report:
The Review examines the honesty, rigour and openness with which the CRU scientists have acted. It is important to note that we offer no opinion on the validity of their scientific work. Such an outcome could only come through the normal processes of scientific debate and not from the examination of e-mails or from a series of interviews about conduct.
OK, let me re-print verbatim their findings:
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.
In addition, we do not find that their behaviour has prejudiced the balance ofadvice given to policy makers. In particular, we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.
But we do find 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 on the part of the UEA, who failed to recognise 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.
OK so they are guilty of some bad judgement, maybe a bit selfish, but the report unequivocally says there was no attempt at deception and more specifically nothing within the emails that would detract from their findings.
On the allegation of withholding 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.
On the allegation of biased station selection and analysis, we find no evidence of bias. Our work indicates that analysis of global land temperature trends is robust to a range of station selections and to the use of adjusted or unadjusted data. The level of agreement between independent analyses is such that it is highly unlikely that CRU could have acted improperly to reach a predetermined outcome. Such action would have required collusion with multiple scientists in various independent organisations which we consider highly improbable.
*On the allegation of withholding station identifiers we find that CRU should have made available an unambiguous list of the stations used in each of the versions of the Climatic Research Unit Land Temperature Record
(CRUTEM) at the time of publication. We find that CRU‟s responses to
reasonable requests for information were unhelpful and defensive.*
The overall implication of the allegations was to cast doubt on the extent to which CRU‟s work in this area could be trusted and should be relied upon and we find no evidence to support that implication.
So nothing wrong with the station data...NO BIAS.
*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.* In particular, on the question of the composition of temperature reconstructions, we found no evidence of exclusion of other published temperature reconstructions that would show a very different picture. The general discussion of sources of uncertainty in the text is extensive, including reference to divergence. In this respect it represented a significant advance on the IPCC Third Assessment
Report (TAR).
On the allegation that the phenomenon of "divergence" may not have been properly taken into account when expressing the uncertainty associated with reconstructions, we are satisfied that it is not hidden and that the subject is openly and extensively discussed in the literature, including CRU papers.
On the allegation that the references in a specific e-mail to a "trick‟ and to hide the decline‟ in respect of a 1999 WMO report figure show evidence of intent to paint a misleading picture, we find that, given its subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the IPCC Third Assessment Report), the figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading. We do not find that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se, or to splice data, but we believe that both of these procedures should have been made plain – ideally in the figure but certainly clearly described in either the caption or the text.
So what are they saying here, well the infamous "trick" was, as we have been told over and over again, was not a trick to fool anybody, but a standard statistical technique. They were guilty of not providing full disclosure, but the trick was not anything in of itself to raise concern ro dishonesty.
On the allegations in relation to withholding data, in particular concerning the small sample size of the tree ring data from the Yamal peninsula, CRU did not withhold the underlying raw data (having correctly directed the single request to the owners). But it is evidently true that access to the raw data was not simple until it was archived in 2009 and that this delay can rightly be criticized on general principles. In the interests of transparency, we believe that CRU should have ensured that the data they did not own, but on which their publications relied, was archived in a more timely way.
On the allegations that there was subversion of the peer review or editorial process we find no evidence to substantiate this in the three instances examined in detail. On the basis of the independent work we commissioned (see Appendix 5) on the nature of peer review, we conclude that it is not uncommon for strongly opposed and robustly expressed positions to be taken up in heavily contested areas of science. We take the view that such behaviour does not in general threaten the integrity of peer review or publication.
On the allegations that in two specific cases there had been a misuse by
CRU scientists of the IPCC process, in presenting AR4 to the public and
policy makers, we find that the allegations cannot be upheld. In addition to taking evidence from them and checking the relevant records of the IPCC process, we have consulted the relevant IPCC review Editors. Both the CRU scientists were part of large groups of scientists taking joint responsibility for the relevant IPCC Working Group texts, and were not in a position to determine individually the final wording and content.
On the allegation that CRU does not appear to have acted in a way consistent with the spirit and intent of the FoIA or EIR, we find that there was unhelpfulness in responding to requests and evidence that e-mails might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them. University senior management should
have accepted more responsibility for implementing the required processes for FoIA and EIR compliance.
So here is basically the only legitimate allegation, that they weren't forthcoming enough. OK that is a fair criticism. But the report is pretty unequivocal in stating that there is nothing in the email to suggest that there was an attempt to deceive or be dishonest. And also there is nothing to suggest the the climate change analysis they did is discredited.
Now a quote from CC:
In a statement after the report's release, Edward Acton, Vice-Chancellor of the University of East Anglia, expressed hope that report would put an end to the "wilder assertions" about the climate science community.
"We hope that commentators will accurately reflect what this highly detailed independent report says, and finally lay to rest the conspiracy theories, untruths and misunderstandings that have circulated," he said.
Don't hold your breath.
Professor Phil Jones, who had stood down as head of CRU while the investigation has been going on, has accepted a new post, Director of Research.