Lord Oxburg
Vísindanefnd breska þingsins hefur gefið út sína aðra skýrslu um hið svokallað climategate-mál, þar sem stolnir tölvupóstar urðu tilefni mikillar gagnrýni á vísindamenn CRU. Í fyrri skýrslu nefndarinnar voru sakir bornar af Phil Jones, en hann er loftslagsvísindamaður hjá CRU. Í þessari nýju skýrslu, sem var stjórnað af Lord Oxburg, kemst vísindanefndin að því að vísindin séu traust og að ekkert bendi til þess að vísindamenn hafi falsað niðurstöður. Helstu niðurstöður má lesa hér undir, einnig má hér nálgast alla skýrsluna (PDF).
1. We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work
of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely
that we would have detected it. Rather we found a small group of dedicated if
slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of
public attention. As with many small research groups their internal procedures
were rather informal.2. We cannot help remarking that it is very surprising that research in an area that
depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close
collaboration with professional statisticians. Indeed there would be mutual
benefit if there were closer collaboration and interaction between CRU and a
much wider scientific group outside the relatively small international circle of
temperature specialists.3. It was not the immediate concern of the Panel, but we observed that there were
important and unresolved questions that related to the availability of
environmental data sets. It was pointed out that since UK government adopted
a policy that resulted in charging for access to data sets collected by
government agencies, other countries have followed suit impeding the flow of
processed and raw data to and between researchers. This is unfortunate and
seems inconsistent with policies of open access to data promoted elsewhere in
government.4. A host of important unresolved questions also arises from the application of
Freedom of Information legislation in an academic context. We agree with the
CRU view that the authority for releasing unpublished raw data to third parties
should stay with those who collected it.
Helstu aðfinnslur nefndarinnar er helst að finna í því að ekki var meiri samvinna við tölfræðinga þar sem tölfræði er mikið notað verkfæri vísindamanna hjá CRU. Það kom einnig fram gagnrýni á gagnrýnisraddir CRU:
We have not exhaustively reviewed the external criticism of the
dendroclimatological work, but it seems that some of these criticisms show a
rather selective and uncharitable approach to information made available by
CRU. They seem also to reflect a lack of awareness of the ongoing and
dynamic nature of chronologies, and of the difficult circumstances under
which university research is sometimes conducted.
Nú er aðeins þriðji hluti rannsóknar bresku vísindanefndarinnar eftir. Þar verður farið dýpra í menningu og starfsaðferðir vísindamannanna. Von er á þeirri skýrslu í næsta mánuði undir stjórn Sir Muir Russell.
Tengt efni af Loftslag.is:
sending...
Leave a Reply