This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site you agree to our use of cookies. To find out more, see our Privacy and Cookies policy.
Skip to the content

Share this

Free weekly newswire

Sign up to receive all our latest news direct to your inbox.

Physics on film

100 Second Science Your scientific questions answered simply by specialists in less than 100 seconds.

Watch now

Bright Recruits

At all stages of your career – whether you're an undergraduate, graduate, researcher or industry professional – brightrecruits.com can help find the job for you.

Find your perfect job

Physics connect

Are you looking for a supplier? Physics Connect lists thousands of scientific companies, businesses, non-profit organizations, institutions and experts worldwide.

Start your search today

Blog

Panel rules out malpractice by climate scientists

By Hamish Johnston

“We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it.”

That is the main conclusion of an independent panel of scientists nominated by the UK’s Royal Society to scrutinize the scientific methodology of researchers at the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU).

The seven-member panel was set-up by the university and chaired by Ron Oxburgh – a geologist, former oil-company executive and member of the UK’s upper house of parliament. It released its findings today.

The panel looked at 11 “representative publications” produced by CRU members over the past 24 years.

While the report is good news for CRU scientists, some climate-change sceptics have accused the panel of being biased because Oxburgh is chairman of the wind energy company Falck Renewables and president of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association. Oxburgh has insisted that the panel had no pre-conceived views on the CRU science.

This is the second report published after private e-mails of CRU members were hacked last year and made public. Critics of the CRU have alleged that the e-mails show that the scientists incorrectly interpreted data to support manmade climate change and also flouted freedom-of-information requests to make data and computer code available to their critics.

The first report – which was released on 31 March by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee – concluded that the University of East Anglia was mostly to blame for supporting a culture of non-disclosure.

This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.
View all posts by this author  | View this author's profile

2 comments

  1. John Duffield

    There’s rather a difference between the IOP submission ( see http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/41965 ) and this report associated with the Royal Society.
    IMHO the authors have no appreciation that criticism MUST come from within science, otherwise all of science will be criticised. This is the sort of thing I mean:
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100034453/climategate-cru-whiter-than-er-whitewash-as-world-laughs-at-agw-scam-apologists/

  2. J Bowers

    “While the report is good news for CRU scientists, some climate-change sceptics have accused the panel of being biased because Oxburgh is chairman of the wind energy company Falck Renewables and president of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association. Oxburgh has insisted that the panel had no pre-conceived views on the CRU science.”
    It’s worth pointing out that Lord Oxburgh has also worked for that big oil company, Shell.

Leave a comment

Your e-mail address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Guidelines

  • Comments should be relevant to the article and not be used to promote your own work, products or services.
  • Please keep your comments brief (we recommend a maximum of 250 words).
  • We reserve the right to remove excessively long, inappropriate or offensive entries.

Show/hide formatting guidelines

Tag Description Example Output
<a> Hyperlink <a href="http://www.google.com">google</a> google
<abbr> Abbreviation <abbr title="World Health Organisation" >WHO</abbr> WHO
<acronym> Acronym <acronym title="as soon as possible">ASAP</acronym> ASAP
<b> Bold <b>Some text</b> Some text
<blockquote> Quoted from another source <blockquote cite="http://iop.org/">IOP</blockquote>
IOP
<cite> Cite <cite>Diagram 1</cite> Diagram 1
<del> Deleted text From this line<del datetime="2012-12-17"> this text was deleted</del> From this line this text was deleted
<em> Emphasized text In this line<em> this text was emphasised</em> In this line this text was emphasised
<i> Italic <i>Some text</i> Some text
<q> Quotation WWF goal is to build a future <q cite="http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/index.html">
where people live in harmony with nature and animals</q>
WWF goal is to build a future
where people live in harmony with nature and animals
<strike> Strike text <strike>Some text</strike> Some text
<strong> Stronger emphasis of text <strong>Some text</strong> Some text
WordPress Appliance - Powered by TurnKey Linux