The official UK inquiry into the climategate affair has found that the 鈥渞igour and honesty of the scientists involved are not in doubt鈥�. But it also concluded that researchers at the (CRU), who were at the centre of the row, showed a 鈥渃onsistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness.鈥�
The seven-month investigation by former civil servant Muir Russell found that the scientists responded to requests for data under freedom-of-information law in ways that 鈥渨ere unhelpful and defensive鈥�.
The university 鈥� based in Norwich, UK 鈥� compounded the errors by 鈥渇ailing to recognise not only the significance of the statutory requirements but also the risk to the reputation of the university and the credibility of UK climate science鈥� when the affair broke, it found.
Advertisement
The was requested by the university after the theft and online publication of more than 1000 emails from the CRU鈥檚 web server last November. This resulted in a flurry of accusations ranging from charges of outright scientific fraud to poor professional conduct over peer review.
Complete exoneration?
The report clears the researchers on many charges, especially relating to their personal integrity. It defended the 鈥渞obust鈥� attitudes taken by scientists such as former CRU director Phil Jones in many email exchanges: most of the bombast and vitriol was 鈥渢ypical of the debate that can go on鈥�, it says. This allowed university vice-chancellor Edward Acton to call it a 鈥渃omplete exoneration鈥�.
However, a close examination of the findings calls that statement into question. For instance the inquiry found that scientists at the CRU and elsewhere had been 鈥渕isleading鈥� in the way they used a version of the celebrated 鈥渉ockey stick鈥� graph of reconstructed past temperatures. Although the initial paper gave full disclosure of the methods used to amalgamate thermometer measurements with proxy data 鈥� from tree rings, for instance 鈥� a subsequent publication of the graph in a World Meteorological Organization volume did not, which Russell and his colleagues deemed misleading.
Elsewhere, the report鈥檚 own methods seem less than thorough. For instance, the inquiry team investigated only three among many instances in which the scientists seemed to be subverting the peer-review process. In particular, it did not look in detail at one instance in which Jones, then director of the unit, said in an email that he had 鈥済one to town鈥� to prevent publication of a paper that was critical of his own work.
Reasons to delete
Nor did the investigators get to the bottom of whether CRU scientists had deleted emails for fear they might be requested under freedom-of-information laws. 鈥淲e find that there was evidence that emails might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them,鈥� states the report. But at the launch this morning, the authors admitted they had not specifically asked the researchers if they had deleted such emails.
Russell did tell the university to rethink its attitude to the freedom-of-information laws, after finding it had been 鈥渦nhelpful鈥� in granting the public access to data. 鈥淚n a new world of openness, accountability and citizen involvement in public-interest science鈥� there need to be new ways of making results and data available,鈥� he said today. And he called for 鈥渁 more productive relationship with critics鈥�, without which he felt climate science will lose public trust.
The university has responded by abolishing the role of director of the CRU, held by Jones until last November. Indeed, the CRU itself will no longer function as an administratively independent unit within the university. Acton said Jones would now become 鈥渄irector of research鈥� for the CRU, working within the university environment department.
