Did you read the 'report' in the OP?
The panel was announced on March 22, 2010, gee they were announced did and investigation and delivered their conclusions on April 12th, really .....??????????
must have been very through investigation...
BTW the head of the panel is involved in a firm that makes money from carbon sequestration, , btw should CRU be in charge of investigating itself? I mean did anyone want ENRON investigating itself with people Ken Lay picked????
So let's examine the conclusion of the report. More than 4 sentences. I would note that this is a public domain document freely distributed and not from a website with financial copyright interest (ie a commercial website like si.com)
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.
So between Mar 22 when we were appointed and April 12th we found shabby process but didn't find evidence that the bad practices were deliberate.
They had 'informal' procedures and were disorganized.... great for people trying to say they can deduce from tree rings temps within a tenth of a degree 400 years ago....
These are the guys who are predicting the future of the climate, sounds like a description of the 3 stooges do climate.
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
Translation they aren't statisticians and their conclusion are based on statistical analysis.
IOW McIntyre and McKittrick were right boys.
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
Translation the data sets are crap, que the Three Stooges again Perhaps Jones can play Moe.
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.
Submitted to the University 12 April 2010
They are OK with hiding the data from independent analysis. BTW what do they know about UK FOI laws?????
Addendum to report, 19 April 2010
For the avoidance of misunderstanding in the light of various press stories, it is
important to be clear that the neither the panel report nor the press briefing intended to
imply that any research group in the field of climate change had been deliberately
misleading in any of their analyses or intentionally exaggerated their findings.
Rather, the aim was to draw attention to the complexity of statistics in this field, and
the need to use the best possible methods
Yeah they are incompetent but not lying and exaggerating on purpose. Great, so this is the best they have to exonerate themselves.
BTW the head of the panel Oxburgh on a T program with surprise Trenbeth of CRU email fame who was involved in running the 'hide the decline' scam (the divergence problem for those who are interested) from 2009:
YouTube - Lord Oxburgh - burning coal
Oxburgh is a MMGW proponent with a monetary interest in CO2 being a threat to human existence.
As to the rest of the panels 'report', most of it consist of restating what CRU did and how science and stastics are hard and they are really nice sincere guys.
This is a pretty pathetic attempt at a whitewash. Embarrassing. But as we can see the believers will accept anything.