‘ClimateGate’ scientist cleared of all wrongdoing

A review by the House of Commons’ Science and Technology Committee began in January in the wake of the ‘Climategate’ media frenzy.

Their results are clear

We believe that the focus on CRU and Professor Phil Jones, Director of CRU, in particular, has largely been misplaced.

We consider that Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community.

We are content that the phrases such as “trick” or “hiding the decline” were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead. Likewise the evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process.

The report covers the data that was used, the “trick” & “hide the decline” comments, the peer review process, freedom of information issues, and what other inquiries are being done in parallel. DeSmogBlog has a longer summary.

6 Comments Posted

  1. It seems the deniers care little for the facts. It is denigrating their “opposition” that is important to them

  2. jc2, I don’t think anyone denies writing/receiving the climategate emails, the conclusion that has been reached is that the contents of the emails are not evidence of any serious wrongdoing.

  3. Hmmm…

    This is a bit of a devil’s-advocate argument; please bite me gently 🙂

    There was a book written in New Zealand with electronic documents from un-ticketed sources, called “The Hollow Men”, and many of us probably approve of it, so the lack of ticketing of the sources isn’t, in itself, evidence of a bad argument.

    Given a data-point, it’s often hard to know how much context is enough.

    That said, there’s an iPhone application for reading from climate science blogs to rebut incoherent anti-AGW arguments, which is called “Skeptical Science”, and I found it an interesting read, but have never actually used it in a conversation with someone.

  4. You know that the climate change deniers were desperate when they took seriously quotes taken out of context by Russian hackers that were obtained during criminal acts.

  5. I’ve been waiting since the House of Commons’ Science and Technology Committee was first released on 31 March for the apologies for the abuse directed at Phil Jones and the CRU on all the denialist blogs over the past few months.

    Alas, I still await them. It seems the deniers care little for the facts. It is denigrating their “opposition” that is important to them.

Comments are closed.