Mittwoch, 14. April 2010

BBC British Brainwash Corperation says 'No malpractice' by climate unit

Keyboard (Autocat)
The row surrounds e-mails hacked from the University of East Anglia

There was no scientific malpractice at the research unit at the centre of the "Climategate" affair, an independent panel has concluded.

The panel, chaired by Lord Oxburgh, was convened to examine the conclusions of research published by the unit.

It began its review after hacked e-mails from CRU scientists were published on the web.

The panel said it might be helpful if researchers worked more closely with professional statisticians.

This would ensure the best methods were used, the report said.

The panel found that the work carried out by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in Norwich relied heavily on statistical methods.

"We cannot help remarking that it is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians," the panel remarked in its conclusions.

The e-mails issue came to light in November last year, when hundreds of messages between scientists at the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climate Research Unit (CRU) and their peers around the world were posted on the world wide web, along with other documents.

Critics said that the e-mail exchanges reveal an attempt by the researchers involved to manipulate data.

But a recent House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report into the e-mails concluded that the scientists involved had no intention to deceive.

The chair has also been challenged over his other interests. Lord Oxburgh is currently president of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and chairman of wind energy firm Falck Renewables.

Critics say clean energy companies would benefit from policies to tackle climate change. But Lord Oxburgh insists the panel did not have a pre-conceived view.

The panel included Professor David Hand, president of the Royal Statistical Society, who had been examining the way CRU used statistical methodology to develop an average annual global temperature.

It is straightforward to get a measurement precise in space and time from an individual weather station - albeit with uncertainties attached.

But some countries have many weather stations, while others have very few, and there are sizeable areas of the Earth with no surface measurements at all.

Climate sceptics have argued CRU's statistical methods were inadequate.

Keine Kommentare:

Kommentar veröffentlichen