Cross-posted from Daniel Cressey on The Great Beyond
The team reviewing allegations of poor scientific practice at the University of East Anglia set out its stall today, and immediately faced questions about its own independence.
The review was triggered by emails purloined from the university’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), which trigged the so-called climate-gate brouhaha.
Review head Muir Russell staunchly defended the independent nature of the review when questioned about the fact that it is funded by the university itself. Russell, the former vice-chancellor of the University of Glasgow, also faced questions about the inclusion of Nature’s editor in chief Philip Campbell on the review team, as some of the questions to be answered concern research and researchers published in the journal.
“We are completely independent,” Russell told reporters. “We’re free to reach any conclusions that we wish. We are free to follow questions wherever they take us.”
Campbell added that he would be happy to excuse himself from any discussions that concern Nature. “Either you accept that the process is being as open as it can be, or you accuse us of covering up,” he added.
Russell’s ‘Independent Climate Change Email Review’ is now one of five separate inquiries into the climate-gate emails.
The Russell inquiry was commissioned by the university and specifically concerns allegations that the emails show poor scientific practice at CRU, the suppression of data, and non-compliance with the UK’s laws on Freedom of Information.
A separate review – also commissioned by UEA and to be assisted by the Royal Society – is looking at the broader issue of the assessment of the CRU’s scientific work. Separately, Parliament’s cross-party science and technology committee has announced its own CRU inquiry. Also ongoing is a police investigation into the original email theft.
Finally an inquiry by the Information Commission was established to address possible breaches of the Freedom of Information Act. Last month the Information Commissioner’s Office announced that requests “were not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation” but too much time had passed for any charges to be considered.
Russell’s review today announced the key questions it thinks should be addressed. These include questions about the use of climate data from tree rings and whether proxy temperature data and instrumental data have been improperly combined.
The latter allegation centres on the now notorious email from Philip Jones, the CRU head, who wrote, “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series … to hide the decline.”
Full disclosure: Daniel Cressey is an employee of Nature and is ultimately answerable to Philip Campbell.
Report this comment
[Comment upon above thread also cross-posted from ’The Great Beyond]
Nature.com
Head of climate-gate inquiry defends independence –
February 11, 2010
You mention the five British investigations of the Climategate
E-mails, but don’t mention the UN Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change’s investigation.
The investigation was announced by Dr Rajendra Pachauri,
chairman of the IPCC, on 4 December 2009:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8394483.stm
denied by him on 8 December 2009:
http://www.france24.com/en/node/4943444
and more recently passed over in silence by him on
29 January 2010:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/327/5965/510/DC1
[Ie when listing investigations to an interviewer he
only listed an ’investigation at the behest of the British
government’—Presumably the House of Commons Science Technology
Select Committee’s Inquiry—, and the University of East Anglia’s
independent investigation].
The investigation is presumably now finally abandoned.
Stephen Prower
Stevenage
Thursday 11 February 2010
Report this comment
Nature.com
Head of climate-gate inquiry defends independence –
February 11, 2010
Update to my posting dated 11 February 2010
Dr Rajendra Pachauri has apparently confusingly changed
position again.
As reported by the Times of India on 21 February 2010,
Dr Pachauri replied as annexed to a question by interviewer
Nitin Sethi.
Ie Dr Pachauri now says that he or the IPCC did conduct a
‘pretty thorough internal check’ or ‘fairly detailed enquiry’
into whether there was tampering with or modification of the
CRU temperature data
Dr Pachauri or the IPCC found that: ’nothing [in the way of
“tampering or modification to the data used to make the
temperature hockey stick"] was really done’.
So call it ‘investigation’, ‘check’ or ‘enquiry’, the
investigation that Dr Pachauri promised on 4 December 2009;
denied on 8 December 2009; and failed to mention
on 29 January 2010 did according to what he now about
21 February 2010 says take place.
Stephen Prower
Stevenage
Thursday 26 February 2010
Document location: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Value-PMs-support-the-most/articleshow/5597352.cms
Document title: ‘Value PM’s support the most’ – India
– The Times of India
‘’Value PM’s support the most’
Nitin Sethi, TNN, Feb 21, 2010, 01.30am IST
…
In the Unviesrity [sic] of East Anglia case are you and IPCC
sure that there has been no tampering or modification to the
data used to make the temperature hocky [sic] stick?
We did a pretty thorough internal check and we have not found
any evidence of that. But we shall wait for the report of the
University of East Anglia. We shall await that report which is
due in April I think. And that is a detailed enquiry and how
these things came about and whether the things mentioned in the
email were carried out by the scientists. What we have done is
fairly detailed enquiry and found nothing was really done.
…’
[END]