One of the investigations following the ‘climategate’ emails scandal has concluded that the CRU did not tamper with scientific information – but stressed that climate scientists should routinely disclose their data and methodology.
The committee said the focus on Professor Phil Jones, the director of the CRU who has stood aside pending reviews into the matter, was ‘largely misplaced’, adding:
Whilst we are concerned that the disclosed e-mails suggest a blunt refusal to share scientific data and methodologies with others, we can sympathise with Professor Jones, who must have found it frustrating to handle requests for data that he knew—or perceived—were motivated by a desire simply to undermine his work.
On the ‘trick’ and ‘hide the decline’ emails, the committee wrote:
Critics of CRU have suggested that Professor Jones’s use of the words “hide the decline” is evidence that he was part of a conspiracy to hide evidence that did not fit his view that recent global warming is predominantly caused by human activity. That he has published papers—including a paper in Nature—dealing with this aspect of the science clearly refutes this allegation. In our view, it was shorthand for the practice of discarding data known to be erroneous. We expect that this is a matter the Scientific Appraisal Panel will address.
Sharing data and methodology
The other main point however is that the committee also criticised the practice of not routinely sharing data. The FT’s Fiona Harvey writes: “Several trained scientists on the parliamentary committee say they were surprised at the lack of transparency among climate scientists around the world.” The committee report noted that the practice dates back to the days when research was publish as hard-copy only, adding:
In such circumstances it is understandable why an editor would not want to publish raw climate data (extremely long lists of numbers) and code for the computer programmes that analyse the data (which run to hundreds of thousands of lines of code). However, in the age of the internet, these kinds of products can be made available more easily, and we are minded to agree with Professor Jones observation on this point that: “Maybe it should be standard practice”.
FOI requests and the UEA’s role
The committee was also critical of the CRU and University of East Anglia, saying it “found prima facie evidence to suggest that the UEA found ways to support the culture at CRU of resisting disclosure of information to climate change sceptics.”
From the summary:
The failure of UEA to grasp fully the potential damage to CRU and UEA by the non-disclosure of FOIA requests was regrettable. UEA needs to review its policy towards FOIA and re-assess how it can support academics whose expertise in this area is limited.
From the full report:
In the context of Freedom of Information (FOIA), much of the responsibility should lie with UEA. The disclosed e-mails appear to show a culture of non-disclosure at CRU and instances where information may have been deleted, to avoid disclosure. We found prima facie evidence to suggest that the UEA found ways to support the culture at CRU of resisting disclosure of information to climate change sceptics. The failure of UEA to grasp fully the potential damage to CRU and UEA by the non-disclosure of FOIA requests was regrettable. UEA needs to review its policy towards FOIA and re-assess how it can support academics whose expertise in this area is limited. The Deputy Information Commissioner has given a clear indication that a breach of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 may have occurred but that a prosecution was time-barred; however no investigation has been carried out. In our view it is unsatisfactory to leave the matter unresolved. We conclude that the matter needs to be resolved conclusively—either by the Independent Climate Change Email Review or by the Information Commissioner.
The committee also referred to the two independent inquiries commissioned by the UEA: the Independent Climate Email Review, which is looking into manipulation, suppression of data and the CRU’s policies and practices, and the Scientific Assessment Panel, looking at the data and research produced by CRU:
We accept the independence of the Climate Change E-mail Review and recommend that the Review be open and transparent, taking oral evidence and conducting interviews in public wherever possible.
On 22 March UEA announced the Scientific Appraisal Panel to be chaired by Lord Oxburgh. This Panel should determine whether the work of CRU has been soundly built and it would be premature for us to pre-judge its work.
Related links:
UAE scientific panel announced - FT Energy Source
Why is the public cooling on climate change? – FT Energy Source
Bits and pieces from the UK parliament ‘climategate’ hearing – FT Energy Source
