Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
The scientists were not "discredited". 5 reviews (including one by Britian's Roayal Society and the House of Commons) did not dispute the science. Penn State also exonerated Michael Mann of any scientific wrongdoing.
The reviews did find that the emails were "mean spirited, others were dismissive of contrarian views, and others revealed a reluctance to share data".
The reviews also complained mildly about one poorly explained temp. chart discussed in the emails, but found no reason to dispute the scientists "rigor and honesty".
British panel clears ‘Climate-gate’ scientists of bias
A British report released Wednesday on the “Climate-gate” scandal criticizes a key group of scientists for lack of transparency and other problems with how they presented their data, but it concludes that their underlying scientific work is sound—and one of the top scientists is getting his job back.
In November, climate change experts at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit found themselves under intense scrutiny when over 1,000 internal e-mails were obtained and uploaded to the Web by hackers. Some climate change skeptics accused the scientists of manipulating data to suppress evidence.
But the experts’ overall “rigor and honesty as scientists are not in doubt,” the new report on the scandal found. The report was requested and paid for by the university, and the panel that conducted the investigation was led by Muir Russell, a retired civil servant and educator.
Last year, Phil Jones, a leading climatologist at the university, temporarily stepped down when he was caught in the center of the firestorm, but he was immediately reinstated based on the conclusions of the report.
|
just like Charlie Rangel......it's getting warmer....
But the final say will be in the hands of a skeptical inspector general at the National Science Foundation,
the primary funder of the research into global warming. According to published documents. The IG must determine whether Penn State's investigation was adequate.
The Office of Inspector General confirmed that it will review the misconduct charges. According to a spokeswoman "OIG is provided with an institution's investigation report, we review it for fairness, accuracy and completeness" -- issues the investigation has already been faulted for.
Penn State's investigation came under severe attack by critics who argued that the university failed to interview any hostile witnesses,
failed to examine the methodology that was at the heart of the controversy and was more concerned that the millions of dollars in grant money it gets by having Mann on the faculty could be jeopardized by adverse findings.
"It was set up to be a total whitewash, and the panel made no effort to investigate," said Steven Milloy, publisher of Junk Science, a Web site that casts doubt on global-warming research. "They didn't even interview the recipients of the e-mails. It is ridiculous,".
A British review board also looked into the leaked e-mails, studying allegations that East Anglia researchers had tampered with data or perverted the peer review process. That panel found the British scientists innocent on March 31 -- although the panel's review included
just a single day of testimony, and also drew ire from warming skeptics.
"The University of East Anglia's enquiry into the conduct of its own staff at its Climatic Research Unit has highlighted criticisms of the department and staff conduct – but clears the path for the individuals concerned to carry on.
The panel avoided examining the scientific work of the CRU team – as have the two other reviews of the leaked archive by Lord Oxburgh, and the Commons select committee on science. If the academics had used bats' wings or tea leaves to create temperature reconstructions, that wasn't a matter for any of the panels to judge. And this is undoubtedly a shortcoming.
bet they got a standing ovation too!