from the BBC
Sir Muir, a former civil servant, will look into allegations that have arisen from the security breach.
[As a measure of how out of touch UEA is, they apparently have little idea that the title “former civil servant” does not inspire much confidence from skeptics, since it has been “civil servants” who have been blocking access to the data and procedures all along. Here is Sir Muir’s Wikipedia page and his biography page on the University of Glasgow web site – Anthony]
The review will examine whether there is evidence of manipulation or suppression of data “at odds with acceptable scientific practice”.
The CRU is based at the University of East Anglia (UEA).
The e-mails issue arose two weeks ago when hundreds of messages between scientists at the CRU and their peers around the world were posted on the world wide web, along with other documents.
It appears that the material was hacked or leaked; a police investigation has yet to reveal which.
CRU maintains one of the world’s most important datasets on how global temperatures have changed.
Professor Phil Jones, director of the unit, has stepped down pending the review, and has said he stands by his data.
At the time that the theft of the data was revealed, some climate sceptic websites picked up on the word “trick” in one e-mail from 1999 and talk of “hiding the decline”.
Professor Jones said the e-mail was genuine but taken “completely out of context”.
He added: “The first thing to point out is that this refers to one diagram – not a scientific paper.
“The word ‘trick’ was used here colloquially as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward.”
UEA has said the review will:
- Examine e-mail exchanges to determine whether there is evidence of suppression or manipulation of data at odds with acceptable scientific practice which “may therefore call into question any of the research outcomes”.
- Review CRU’s policies and practices for acquiring, assembling, subjecting to peer review and disseminating data and research findings, and “their compliance or otherwise with best scientific practice”.
- Review CRU’s compliance or otherwise with the UEA’s policies and practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) for the release of data.
- Review and make recommendations about the management, governance and security structures for CRU and the security, integrity and release of the data it holds.
Sir Muir commented: “Given the nature of the allegations it is right that someone who has no links to either the university or the climate science community looks at the evidence and makes recommendations based on what they find.
Read the complet article here
h/t to Leif Svalgaard
Sorry, that would be: “what their masters bid them to do”
Sir Muir Russell was the chief civil servant in Scotland when the Scottish Parliament building was being put up. That casued considerable scandal here because it was initially promised at £40 million & actually cost £430 million. Sir Muir was criticised by the report on this for having concealed from all the politicians that costs were going thjrought the roof. So either he is grossly incompetent & fraudulent or he knows how to provide cover for politicians. Since his subsequent career in various sorts of government service has been lucrative I susopect the latter. Either way he is clearly somebody that can be relied on to achieve the desired results in any enquiry.
Sir Muir appears only concerned with the leaked e-mails. Some of the leaked documents are fun, too. Try IPCC Working Group I Fourth Assessment Report; Expert and Government Review Comments on the Second-Order Draft, Reviewers Comments 6-1114, -5 and -6. File 4RSOR_BatchAB_Ch06_KRB_1stAug in FOI2009\FOIA\documents
There you will find some reviewers comments on the unacceptability of certain papers that the drafters hoped to use in Chapter 6. The reviewer’s comments were obviously correct – they merely referred to the IPCC’s rules – yet the papers were not only used in Chapter 6 of FAR but form a cornerstone of the argument. This is a marvellous example of just how far from true scientific review the IPCC process has moved.