Social Media Links:

Síguenos:

Cancuún México 29 de noviembre - 10 de diciembre 
Choose your prefered language: Español | English

Sceptics brand climate inquiry a 'whitewash'

United Kingdom
Financial Times
07/07/2010
Fiona Harvey, Environment Correspondent

As the biggest investigation into the “climategate” e-mail scandal concluded on Wednesday afternoon, climate change sceptics in the blogosphere were quick to call the results of the inquiry a “whitewash”.

Most were unconvinced by the report that followed a the six-month review by a committee led by former civil servant Sir Muir Russell, which looked into the hundreds of e-mails hacked last year from the University of East Anglia.

Climate sceptics and bloggers had alleged that the e-mails showed climate scientists wrongfully manipulating data to change the outcome, concealing key data and attempting to subvert the process of peer review of scientific papers.

“Mac”, a blogger on the ClimateAudit website, said: “What would you know – ANOTHER WHITEWASH.” Noting that the review found that key data needed to reproduce the scientists’ findings was freely available to any “competent” researcher, he said this meant prominent climate change sceptics were now being labelled “incompetent”. “As with Lord Hutton’s Inquiry, Sir Muir Russell finds no evidence of wrong doing by [UEA] scientists, but points the finger of blame at sceptics.”

Another poster to the same site, “Spence_UK”, gave the report two out of ten “for actually documenting some of the bad behaviour”. The blogger added: “I give them 0/3 for understanding what was going on and 0/3 for dismissing it all ... as irrelevant in the findings and conclusions.”

On the Bishop Hill blog, Peter Bartby called the report a “pretty thorough whitewash job”. “Luke Warmer” on the same blog said it was clear from the report that, contrary to its findings, the UEA scientists had distorted data: “That they’ve corrected, adjusted, homogenised, shoe-horned, normalised, truncated, bodged, lost, inverted, interpreted in line with bias, selectively excluded, over-weighted etc is plain for everyone who wants to see.”

Though many climate scientists had hoped the review would lay to rest the allegations of wrongdoing, it was clear on Wednesday that the argument would continue to run in the blogosphere.

 

El contenido de las noticias que se presentan en esta sección es responsabilidad directa de las agencias emisoras de noticias y no necesariamente reflejan la posición del Gobierno de México en este u otros temas relacionados.

    

Page 'Breadcrumb' Navigation:

Site 'Main' Navigation: