The specific questionable actions included: destruction of data, how to avoid Freedom of Information requests, suppression of other scientists in the scientific community, and ways of manipulating data in order to make it return specific results.
Scientists pollute global warming study
By Drew Landis | Daily Lobo
Let me first say that my goal in writing this is neither to support nor refute global warming.
I am not trying to push a pro-con global warming agenda, and I am not interested in trying to prove whether it is man-made or natural. Rather, I intend to use global warming as a case study and show how, through the global-warming issue, science has become convoluted, controversial, confusing and, ultimately, bastardized.
My aim is to encourage scientists and those concerned about the world (most specifically current students) to produce good science and encourage others to produce good science.
As a whole, science has been hurt by the global-warming issue, because when society sees the faults in a minority of scientists, they arrive at the conclusion that all scientists (and thus all science) could be equally flawed. I am not picking out global warming scientists as a homogenous organization, but instead picking one small group that I fault.
The University of East Anglia issue is a chief example.
In November 2009, thousands of e-mails and documents were hacked and released on the Internet. These documents concerned matters that took place within UEA’s Climate Research Unit (CRU). They covered topics from mundane chit-chat to questionable actions. The specific questionable actions included: destruction of data, how to avoid Freedom of Information requests, suppression of other scientists in the scientific community, and ways of manipulating data in order to make it return specific results.
Any good scientist understands that good data is fundamental to science. Without data, science can go nowhere.
The leaked documents painted a picture of UEA scientists avoiding Freedom of Information requests and, if need be, resorting to data destruction rather than allowing other scientists to see it.