University of East Anglia shamed into what it claims will be full disclosure

“Leading British scientists at the University of East Anglia, who were accused of manipulating climate change data – dubbed Climategate – have agreed to publish their figures in full.

The U-turn by the university follows a week of controversy after the emergence of hundreds of leaked emails, “stolen” by hackers and published online, triggered claims that the academics had massaged statistics.

In a statement welcomed by climate change sceptics, the university said it would make all the data accessible as soon as possible, once its Climatic Research Unit (CRU) had negotiated its release from a range of non-publication agreements.

The publication will be carried out in collaboration with the Met Office Hadley Centre. The full data, when disclosed, is certain to be scrutinised by both sides in the fierce debate. …

Professor Trevor Davies, the university’s Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research Enterprise and Engagement, said yesterday: “CRU’s full data will be published in the interests of research transparency when we have the necessary agreements. …

Dr Michaels, tracked down by this newspaper to the Cato Institute in Washington DC where he is a senior fellow in environmental studies, said last night: “There were a lot of people who thought I was exaggerating when I kept insisting terrible things are going on here.

“This is business as usual for them. The world might be surprised but I am not. These guys have an attitude.”” “Climategate: University of East Anglia U-turn in climate change row” h/t Marc Morano

Advertisements

No Responses to “University of East Anglia shamed into what it claims will be full disclosure”

  1. astonerii Says:

    Too bad they actually threw the raw data into the garbage so that any amount of transparency at this point is false.Even if the raw data can be reverse engineered from the current "value added" version, I cannot imagine they used 100% of the raw data since they are known cherry pickers.

  2. jblethen Says:

    They said they trashed the raw data, but how can you believe them?

  3. Anonymous Says:

    Without outside independent verification, they can not be believed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: