Mistähän tuo Handin lausunto on, kun ei ainakaan UK:n alahuoneen raportissa sitä lue? Ainoa mistä olen vastaavia lukenut on lehdistöhaastattelut tapauksesta. Löytyykö mahdollisesti jotain virallisempaa?
Prof Mann, who is Professor of Earth System Science at the Pennsylvania State University, said the statistics used in his graph were correct.
"I would note that our '98 article was reviewed by the US National Academy of Sciences, the highest scientific authority in the United States, and given a clean bill of health," he said. "In fact, the statistician on the panel, Peter Bloomfield, a member of the Royal Statistical Society, came to the opposite conclusion of Prof Hand." 'Hockey stick' graph was exaggerated - Telegraph
"The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia" -
raportista:
135. Consideration of the complaints and accusations made against CRU has led us to
three broad conclusions.
136. Conclusion 1 The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely
misplaced.
On the accusations relating to Professor Jones’s refusal to share raw data
and computer codes, we consider that his actions were in line with common practice in
the climate science community. We have suggested that the community consider
becoming more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies. On
accusations relating to Freedom of Information, we consider that much of the
responsibility should lie with UEA, not CRU.
137. Conclusion 2 In addition, insofar as we have been able to consider accusations
of dishonesty—for example, Professor Jones’s alleged attempt to “hide the decline”—
we consider that there is no case to answer. Within our limited inquiry and the evidence
we took,
the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. We have
found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus as
expressed by Professor Beddington, that “global warming is happening [and] that it is
induced by human activity”.184 It was not our purpose to examine, nor did we seek
evidence on, the science produced by CRU. It will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel
to look in detail into all the evidence to determine whether or not the consensus view
remains valid.
138. Conclusion 3
A great responsibility rests on the shoulders of climate science: to
provide the planet’s decision makers with the knowledge they need to secure our future.
The challenge that this poses is extensive and some of these decisions risk our standard
of living. When the prices to pay are so large, the knowledge on which these kinds of
decisions are taken had better be right. The science must be irreproachable.
Lisäksi sivulta 49.
Even if the data that CRU used were not publicly available
—which they mostly are— or the methods not published
—which they have been—its published results would still be credible: the results from CRU agree with those drawn from other international data sets; in other words, the analyses have been repeated and the conclusions have been verified. (Paragraph 51)
ja tässä erityisesti niille, jotka väittivät UK:ssa tieteellisen datan olevan aina kaikille avointa:
It is not standard practice in climate science and many other fields to publish the raw data and the computer code in academic papers. We think that this is problematic because climate science is a matter of global importance and of public interest, and therefore the quality and transparency of the science should be irreproachable. We therefore consider that climate scientists should take steps to make available all the data used to generate their published work, including raw data; and it should also be
made clear and referenced where data has been used but, because of commercial or national security reasons is not available.
Scientists are also, under Freedom of Information laws and under the rules of normal scientific conduct, entitled to withhold data which is due to be published under the peer-review process. In addition, scientists should take steps to make available in full their methodological
workings, including the computer codes. Data and methodological workings should be provided via the internet. There should be enough information published to allow verification. (Paragraph 54)
sivulta 50.
The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to
subvert the peer review process.
Academics should not be criticised for making
informal comments on academic papers. The Independent Climate Change Email
Review should look in detail at all of these claims. (Paragraph 73)
Tähän myöskin liittyen:
Lord Oxburgh FRS, a former chair of the Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, is to chair an independent Scientific Assessment Panel to examine important elements of the published science of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.
CRU Scientific Assessment Panel announced - University of East Anglia (UEA)
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc0002.pdf
