The long awaited report on last year’s Climategate has just been released. The panel that conducted the inquiry was chaired by former U.K. civil servant Muir Russell. It was in response to the leaking of more than 1,000 confidential emails from the East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU). Recommendations from the inquiry focused on minor concerns with the practices of the CRU: Sloppy data management and a lack of transparency in making their data publicly accessible.
Russell stated in his report, “we find that their rigor and honesty as scientists are not in doubt, we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness.” Overall, the report did not find outright fraud by the unit in their reporting on climate change. Nonetheless, the report, much like Climategate itself, has created a lot of buzz. The responses so far to the report indicate the debate over this controversy is likely to continue even after its release.
I’ve posted links below which really give an array of reactions to the report:
- The team at Real Climate find vindication in the report.
- Climate Audit finds fault in the report and provides a detailed account of their contention with its findings.
- George Monbiot no longer has second thoughts about the CRU and climate change after reading the report.
- Gene Lyons declares “Mission Accomplished” after the panel’s report.
- Gerald Warner argues that even after this report the CRU brand remains toxic.
- The Guardian faults the CRU for too much secrecy in their operations which caused this problem in the first place.
- Terrence Corcoran argues that even though Russell’s report is in, it does not resolve the issue that climate science is in shambles.