Further to my article of 26th March, following the politically inspired whitewash of the UEA CRU by the UK’s Commons Science and Technology Committee, we have the media reporting on another UEA CRU whitewash.
In my earlier article I said QUOTE: On the basis of the above only Professor Hand may be “Free from the influence, guidance, or control of another or others”. The remainder could well be exposed to such influence UNQUOTE.
It looks as though Professor Hand insisted in getting his opinion included in the report, although the Guardian’s biased report (Note 1) chose to headline “Scientists cleared of malpractice in UEA's hacked emails inquiry” this, whereas the Telegraph (Note 2) headlined “'Climategate' scientists criticised for not using best statistical tools”. Media reports do point out that QUOTE: The panel did raise doubts about the statistical input into scientific papers authored by researchers at CRU. “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,” it concluded UNQUOTE.
In it’s attempted face-saving response UEA QUOTE: .. noted: “Specialists in many areas of research acquire and develop the statistical skills pertinent to their own particular data analysis requirements. However, we do see the sense in engaging more fully with the wider statistics community to ensure that the most effective and up-to-date statistical techniques are adopted and will now consider further how best to achieve this.” UNQUOTE. Honest scientists should have done this without being forced into it by the leaking of E-mails. As a consequence of their reluctance to involve expert statisticians no credence can be placed in the findings of UEA CRU scientists until all of the statistical manipulations it used to arrive at its research findings have been independently reviewed by such experts.
Next we’ll have the expected whitewash by the IPCC enquiry. As we all well know, politicians do not allow or encourage open, honest and independent enquiries into their misdemeanours.
I still haven’t seen anything recently about the UEA’s Muir Russell review – does anyone know what stage it is at?
1) see http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/14/oxburgh-uea-cleared-malpractice
2) see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7589715/Climategate-scientists-criticised-for-not-using-best-statistical-tools.html