Climategate Scientists Cleared In Report

An inquiry into the science carried out by the Climatic Research Unit whose emails were leaked onto the Internet has levelled only very mild criticism against “a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers”.

The inquiry, lead by Lord Oxburgh, was commissioned by the University of East Anglia after a batch of leaked emails ignited a storm of criticism of climate change science, and of the researchers at the University’s Climatic Research Unit, one of the foremost contributors to UN figures on climate change.

The criticism emerged days before the UN’s COP15 summit on climate change in Copenhagen, and the change in public opinion is believed to be a factor in the summit’s failure to produce strong commitments on emissions reduction.

“No deliberate malpractice”

Lord Oxburgh’s 5-page report deals with the CRU’s “scientific integrity”, and is not a ruling on climate science as a whole – and it vindicates the work of the CRU and it’s head, Phil Jones (left). “We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any work of the Climatic Research Unit,” said the report.

The report does offer mild criticism of the CRU’s failure to use professional statisticians in an area which “depends so heavily on statistical methods”. It also questioned whether free access to the CRU’s data sets should have been provided sooner (the Unit has released all its data since the email leak), and said the scientists failed in the PR stakes – being “ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention”.

Lord Oxburgh’s role in the enquiry has been criticised – he is a director of two environmental energy companies and a paid advisor on the subject to a long list of companies, leading one critic, apparently, to describe his appointment as “putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank”.

Climate change critic Steve McIntyre has complained that the inquiry did not interview any of CRU’s critics and took only three weeks to reach its conclusion.

A committee of MPs similarly found the scientists to have been well-intentioned, but claims they failed to answer requests for data under the Freedom of Information Act, a finding backed up by the Information Commissioner.

One more inquiry set up by the University has yet to report. This one, led by civil servent Sir Muir Russell, plans to look at the allegations arising from the email leak.

Peter Judge

Peter Judge has been involved with tech B2B publishing in the UK for many years, working at Ziff-Davis, ZDNet, IDG and Reed. His main interests are networking security, mobility and cloud

Recent Posts

X’s Community Notes Fails To Stem US Election Misinformation – Report

Hate speech non-profit that defeated Elon Musk's lawsuit, warns X's Community Notes is failing to…

1 day ago

Google Fined More Than World’s GDP By Russia

Good luck. Russia demands Google pay a fine worth more than the world's total GDP,…

1 day ago

Spotify, Paramount Sign Up To Use Google Cloud ARM Chips

Google Cloud signs up Spotify, Paramount Global as early customers of its first ARM-based cloud…

2 days ago

Meta Warns Of Accelerating AI Infrastructure Costs

Facebook parent Meta warns of 'significant acceleration' in expenditures on AI infrastructure as revenue, profits…

2 days ago

AI Helps Boost Microsoft Cloud Revenues By 33 Percent

Microsoft says Azure cloud revenues up 33 percent for September quarter as capital expenditures surge…

2 days ago