Climate scientists at the center of a row over the reliability of climate science were found to be honest and rigorous, but lacking in openness, the final inquiry into hacked emails at the U.K.'s Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia said Wednesday.
Climate scientists at the center of a row over the reliability of
climate science were found to be honest and rigorous, but lacking in openness,
the final inquiry into hacked emails at the
U.K.
's
Climatic Research Unit at the
University
of
East
Anglia
said Wednesday.
The inquiry, which is chaired by former civil servant Muir Russell and
commissioned by the UEA, also said it found no evidence of behavior from
scientists that might undermine the conclusions of the United Nations Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change's assessments on global warming.
"We find that their rigor and honesty as scientists are not in
doubt," Russell said.
"In addition, we do not find that their behavior has prejudiced the
balance of advice given to policy makers," Russell said.
But he added that "the 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, in response to freedom of information requests, risked the
reputation of the university and the credibility of U.K. climate science.
The Independent Climate Change Emails Review was set up to examine the conduct
of the scientists involved, examine allegations about the behavior of the
scientists and make recommendations to the UEA.
The issue has been at the heart of a row over the reliability of data
supporting the conclusion that climate change is happening and is man-made. The
row also overshadowed last year's
Copenhagen
climate conference where world leaders failed to agree a legally binding treaty
to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
The UEA's CRU--one of the main contributors of temperature data to the U.N.'s
IPCC--has come under increasing attack following last year's publication
without authorization of around 1,000 hacked emails from the unit concerning
its raw data on global temperatures.
Climate skeptics said the emails showed the CRU manipulated and suppressed data
to overstate the dangers posed by climate change.
But the Muir Russell inquiry, which considered detailed submissions from
climate researchers and critics, as well as interviews with key scientists,
dismissed those accusations.
The Climate Change Emails Review is the third and final inquiry on the matter.
The first inquiry, conducted by
U.K.
lawmakers,
cleared the UEA scientists of any wrong-doing. A second inquiry by an
independent panel of academics in conjunction with the Royal Society, also
cleared the climate researchers at the center of last year's scandal over
hacked emails, of "deliberate scientific malpractice."
Earlier this week, a review commissioned by the Dutch government into the
IPCC's projections on climate change said that although it supported its view
that global warming presents a significant danger, some of the IPCC report's
conclusions tended to single out the most important negative impacts of climate
change.
Διαβάστε ακόμα
Πεμ, 10 Οκτωβρίου 2024 - 19:39
Πεμ, 10 Οκτωβρίου 2024 - 19:36
Τρι, 24 Σεπτεμβρίου 2024 - 19:58
Τρι, 24 Σεπτεμβρίου 2024 - 19:54
Τετ, 18 Σεπτεμβρίου 2024 - 18:32