The world was shocked seven months ago when allegations of scientific results fixing for leading climate scientists. The scientist had been building and publishing data for decades. In the end it all the fuss was about bad grammar or poorly chosen words in leaked emails. The emails in questions caused an incredible international scandal. With such far reaching effects the debate on the whether global warming was real or climate change had finally been established as a legitimate concern.
The scandal fueled skepticism about the case for global warming just weeks before world leaders met to agree a global deal on climate change at a United Nations conference in Copenhagen last December.
Muir Russell, headed the seven-month review said “We went through this very carefully and we concluded that these behaviors did not damage our judgment of the integrity, the honesty, the rigor with which they had operated as scientists”
Russell went on to say “They had not shown sufficient openness in the way in which they responded to requests for information about what they were doing, about the data that they were processing, about the stations that they were analyzing, so on.”
It was back in November 2009, the integrity of the CRU and its research were called into question after the publication of more than 1,000 emails, dating back to 1996, to and from scientists employed there.
Particular attention focused on one e-mail from the unit’s head, Professor Phil Jones, which referred to a “trick” being used on data submitted to the World Meteorological Organization in 1999.
Jones wrote: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years … to hide the decline.”
The commission asked Jones to explain his words or how the trick was employed. Jones told the review that “the word ‘trick’ was not intended to imply any deception, simply the ‘best way of doing or dealing with something.'”
Ultimately the commission agreed with him and published “crucially, the e-mails cannot always be relied upon as evidence of what actually occurred, nor indicative of actual behavior that is extreme, exceptional or unprofessional.”