The Guardian is reporting that the Oxburgh Inquiry into the methods of the CRU has released its report and has found that the CRU was cleared of malpractice.
The scientists at the centre of the row over the hacked climate emails have been cleared of any deliberate malpractice by the second of three inquiries into their conduct.
The inquiry panel, led by the former chair of the House of Lords science and technology select committee Lord Oxburgh, was commissioned by the University of East Anglia with investigating the research produced by the scientists at its Climatic Research Unit (CRU).
The work of the unit has come under intense scrutiny since November when thousands of private emails between the researchers were released onto the internet. At a press conference earlier today Lord Oxburgh said, “Whatever was said in the emails, the basic science seems to have been done fairly and properly,” although his panel did criticise the scientists for not using the best statistical techniques at times.
The report concluded: “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. Rather we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention. As with many small research groups their internal procedures were rather informal.”
I’ll post responses when I find them from the contrarian/denialist crowd, but for a start, here’s CA:
The BBC reports that Lord Oxburgh of Globe International is to report his report on CRU science, perhaps tomorrow. The panel was first announced on March 22, 2010 – see here. No terms of reference were disclosed then, nor, to my knowledge, have they been disclosed subsequently.
Harrabin says that “members of the panel are said to have cross-examined CRU researchers for a total of 15 man-days”.
To my knowledge, they have not interviewed any critics of CRU or targets of the Climategate emails.
I don’t expect many happy campers, nor do I expect any retractions. As I have said, it’s not about the science, so if the science is found to be sound, no diff.