

CRU climate scientists did not withold data - pierrefar
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10538198.stm

======
yummyfajitas
Title is misleading.

The report claims that the CRU didn't withhold data simply because "any
independent researcher can download station data directly from primary sources
and undertake their own temperature trend analysis". So basically, the CRU
withheld their own data/source code, but they didn't cover up other people's
data. Huh?

Even the report admits that "there has been a consistent pattern of failing to
display the proper degree of openness". This sounds like an attempt at
whitewashing, basically giving reporters a justification for ignoring the
whole mess.

~~~
anthonyb
You obviously didn't read the next paragraph:

"Writing computer code to process the data "took less than two days and
produced results similar to other independent analyses. No information from
CRU was needed to do this"."

Personally I can understand them not wanting to "fully comply", given the
number of FoI requests they would've received and their tone. Have you seen
the vitriol over at Climate Audit?

edit: It gets even better a bit further down: "Asked whether it would be
reasonable to conclude that anyone claiming instrumental records were
unavailable or vital code missing was incompetent, another panel member,
Professor Peter Clarke from Edinburgh University, said: "It's very clear that
anyone who'd be competent enough to analyse the data would know where to find
it. It's also clear that anyone competent could perform their own analysis
without let or hindrance.""

~~~
roboneal
The number and "tone" of the requests is irrelevant.

If they want to ignore or not "fully comply" with FOI requests - they
shouldn't take public funds.

~~~
tome
If you're a university researcher in the UK it's impossible not to take public
funds. All universities (bar one) are publically funded.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Then don't be a university researcher.

In fact, if you don't want to reveal your top secret source code/data, _don't
publish in science journals_. It's utterly ridiculous that journals still
exist which don't require source/data to be released.

~~~
ant5
The data was available.

If you want to independently verify it, the best way is to write your own code
and see if it spits out the same/similar results.

------
brc
In reality it matters little what these self-examinationary enquiries come up
with, because the climate scientists have lost the PR war with this one, and
that's the crucial court of opinion. A few committed internet posters will
point to the results and say 'but they were exonerated' - when in reality the
enquiries all endorse the opinion they acted poorly.

We've gone past the high water mark of human-caused climate change now -
perhaps in history the runup to Copenhagen will look like the high point for
the cause. Governments the world over are turning their back as an issue.
There'll always be a committed band of supporters and promoters but once
governments see it as a dead issue then everyone else will move on.

The good news in all this is that as the smoke clears from the FUD surrounding
climate change, it will allow alternative energy sources to be evaluated on
their eficiency merits, rather than how well they link in to some government-
invented paper-swapping scheme. Removing the demonisation of C02 will allow
people to concentrate on the real environmental costs of any energy source and
decide if the cost is worth it or not.

------
gaika
From the original report [1]:

"It was not our purpose to examine, nor did we seek evidence on, the science
produced by CRU. It will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel to look in
detail into all the evidence to determine whether or not the consensus view
remains valid."

[1]
[http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/ph...](http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/phil%20jones%20house%20of%20commons%20report.pdf)

------
jgrahamc
But the report does ask for better handling of the blogosphere, plus opening
up data and source code: <http://blog.jgc.org/2010/07/cce-review-report.html>

~~~
pierrefar
Good post.

The Guardian has an interesting article from this past Sunday about scientists
being more open.

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/04/climatecha...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/04/climatechange-
hacked-emails-muir-russell)

I, for one, welcome this openness, and hope that it leads to the removal of
fundamentalists from both sides from the debate. No doubt there is a big
problem, and we won't solve it when people are merely shouting at each other.

~~~
swah
If you remove fundamentalists from both sides, won't there be new
fundamentalists: the first and last elements of the spectrum?

~~~
pierrefar
I'm hoping the new extremes are not ideological fundamentalists.

------
dmfdmf
This looks like a whitewash to me. It wasn't just about whether they withheld
data or even source code. One of their tactics, revealed by the leaked emails,
was to publicly berate the scientists who opposed AGW to publish their
arguments in peer reviewed journals. In private they worked to get journal
editors fired, ignore journals that published opposite views, discredited and
hampered the careers of opponents, etc. More importantly, this whole approach
of focusing on one little fact and using that to "prove" there was no
conspiracy is like focusing on the glove that would not fit in the OJ trial.
If you read the leaked emails the pattern seems pretty clear -- these guys
were not engaging in science but politics.

~~~
amh
Large amounts of government funding for scientific research create an equally
large incentive to produce results which are politically useful (or at least,
not politically inconvenient). In the case of AGW, the easy "solution" is
massive expansion of government regulation in all spheres of life, as well as
creation of new markets for government carbon indulgences, an excellent
mechanism for enriching politicians and selected corporate cronies.

Any contrarian viewpoints are excluded both explicitly and implicitly, because
ideas that resemble what's already been published in journals are those most
likely to get funding. The vast majority of scientists aren't gonna jump off
the gravy train and potentially sacrifice their tenure.

------
lacrossegm
[http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/029130BFDC78FA3...](http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/029130BFDC78FA33/1/5WvasALL-
hw)

direct link: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WvasALL-hw>

