Inquiry clears climate scientists over e-mail
A six month inquiry has concluded the climate scientists at the centre of controversy over leaked e-mails had done nothing wrong. The scientists had been accused by climate sceptics of fudging data.
Source: AM | Duration: 3min 21sec
TONY EASTLEY: The scientists whose leaked emails sparked a heated debate and speculation over the quality of research into climate change have been cleared by an independent inquiry in Britain.
A six-month inquiry has concluded the scientists at the University of East Anglia were not dishonest, however, it found they should have been more open about their work.
Rachael Brown reports from London.
RACHAEL BROWN: When 13 years of emails from scientists at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit were hacked into, and released online last year, the ripples spread around the world.
Climate change sceptics seized on the emails to argue the scientists were manipulating and suppressing their data to support predetermined theories on man-made climate change.
But the inquiry led by Sir Muir Russell is now the third independent review to clear their reputations.
Professor Edward Acton, from the University of East Anglia.
EDWARD ACTON: The scientific findings show there was nothing to hide, absolutely nothing to hide.
RACHAEL BROWN: The inquiry concludes the scientists' rigour and honesty are not in doubt, and they did not subvert the peer review process to censor criticism.
But Sir Muir says their work could've been more transparent.
SIR MUIR RUSSELL: The question that arises was openness in relation to how that science was then being challenged, being discussed and the commerce that there was between them and critics and challengers right round the world.
RACHAEL BROWN: Also criticised was a graph prepared for the World Meteorological Organisation, showing temperatures from 1850 ticking up sharply at the end of the 20th Century.
The inquiry found the graph was misleading, but not intentionally so.
The findings haven't quelled the mistrust of climate change sceptics like Lord Nigel Lawson from the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
LORD NIGEL LAWSON: Well misleading is very serious, for scientists to be misleading the public and misleading the politicians on an issue where huge decisions, huge expensive decisions are going to be based on this, that is very disreputable and the other, the lack of openness is disreputable; the failure to accede to freedom of information requests is disreputable.
RACHAEL BROWN: Other sceptics like Douglas Keenan who's an independent campaigner for accountability in science also argue the inquiry was not thorough.
But he says openness in the scientific community has improved in the wake of the Climategate saga.
DOUGLAS KEENAN: Openness in terms of making data available, yes, there's no question that attitudes have changed and not just the University of East Anglia, I have also had requests based on the UK Freedom of Information Act that, for example, Queens University Belfast and I have noticed a marked change in their attitude and manner since all of this has happened.
RACHAEL BROWN: Bob Ward is from the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change at the London School of Economics.
He says it might make it harder to recruit researchers if they feel, in this age of the blogosphere, they're subjected to the same scrutiny as public officials.
BOB WARD: To be put under that kind of scrutiny is very difficult and I think some researchers will think long and hard about the extent to which they are willing to be identified as public individuals and some of these people get, you know, abusive emails, they're attacked publicly.
It is not the kind of thing that I think anybody would relish.
RACHAEL BROWN: The inquiry might be over, but the debate about global warming continues, with researchers' methods firmly under the microscope.
This is Rachael Brown in London, reporting for AM.