This is the final report, which has been embargoed until 5:01 PM PDT / 00:01 GMT March 31st.

Below is the emailed notice to MP’s sent with the PDF of the report.
Date: 30 March 2010 10:30
Subject: EMBARGOED REPORT: CLIMATE SCIENCE MUST BECOME MORE TRANSPARENT SAY MPs
To: [undisclosed recipients]
Phil Willis MP, Committee Chair, is available for embargoed interviews today. Please let me know if you wish to bid (I will be at the embargoed briefing until approx 1pm but will respond once I return).
Embargoed press briefing for science, environment and news corrs at Science Media Centre (21 Albemarle Street London, W1S 4BS), 11.30 am today.
SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE
Select Committee Announcement
[X]
31 March 2010
***EMBARGOED UNTIL 00.01 WEDNESDAY 31 MARCH 2010***
CLIMATE SCIENCE MUST BECOME MORE TRANSPARENT, SAY MPs
The Science and Technology Committee today publishes its report on the disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. The Committee calls for the climate science
community to become more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies.
Phil Willis MP, Committee Chair, said:
“Climate science is a matter of global importance. On the basis of the science, governments across the world will be spending trillions of pounds on climate change mitigation. The quality of the science therefore has to be irreproachable. What this inquiry revealed was that climate scientists need to take steps to make available all the data that support their work and full methodological workings, including their computer codes. Had both been available, many of the problems at CRU could have been avoided.”
The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones’s refusal to share raw data and computer codes, the Committee considers that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community but that those practices need to change.
On the much cited phrases in the leaked e-mails-“trick” and “hiding the decline”-the Committee considers that they were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a
systematic attempt to mislead.
Insofar as the Committee was able to consider accusations of dishonesty against CRU, the Committee considers that there is no case to answer.
The Committee found no reason in this inquiry to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, that “global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity”. But this was not an inquiry into the science produced by CRU and it will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel, announced by the University on 22 March, to determine whether the work of CRU has been soundly built.
On the mishandling of Freedom of Information (FoI) requests, the Committee considers that much of the responsibility should lie with the University, not CRU. The leaked e-mails appear to show a culture of non-disclosure at CRU and instances where information may have been deleted to avoid disclosure, particularly to climate change sceptics. The failure of the University to grasp fully the potential damage this could do and did was regrettable. The University needs to re-assess how it can
support academics whose expertise in FoI requests is limited.
Ends.
NOTES TO EDITORS:
Further details about this inquiry can be found at:
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_technology/s_t_cru_inquiry.cfm
Media Enquiries: Becky Jones: 020 7219 5693 Committee Website:
http://www.parliament.uk/science Publications / Reports / Reference
Material: Copies of all select committee reports are available from the
Parliamentary Bookshop (12 Bridge St, Westminster, 020 7219 3890) or the
Stationery Office (0845 7023474). Committee reports, press releases,
evidence transcripts, Bills; research papers, a directory of MPs, plus
Hansard (from 8am daily) and much more, can be found on
www.parliament.uk<http://www.parliament.uk/>.
Rebecca Jones
House of Commons Select Committee Media Officer Children, Schools &
Families; Health; Science & Technology; Northern Ireland; Scotland; Wales
===================================================
UPDATE:
Steve McIntyre has a few points to make, which I encourage reading here at Climate Audit
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Well that is disappointing but not surprising. No mention of the software code that actually did the dirty deeds.
We are nice guys. We see the CRU failed to act more like gentlemen. That is to be regretted.
Holy whitewash Batman! I am going to invest in paints, because demand in Britain just sky-rocketted!
Well, it seems that the UK-HOC has bought into the AGW scam hook, line & sinker!!!!! Bad timing – the gig’s up.
The IPCC has hung itself and the UK-HOC seems hellbent on joining them. Talk about a house of cards. This one is built on a fault line that’s already quakin’.
The Arctic ice is ready to hit recent record hi extent, Nino’s over the hump, and the rest is lining up for AGW’s facing the music. The Big’s want to hit the ground hard – got it.
Seems like more global warming is falling in the UK …
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/03/global-warming.html
CLIMATE SCIENCE MUST BECOME MORE TRANSPARENT, SAY MPs
And therefore must be embargoed. What a farce.
“The Committee calls for the climate science community to become more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies.’ – Something that EVERYONE should be demanding from ALL scientists!
I wonder how many of the scientists will take this recommendation to heart?
“We therefore consider that climate scientists should take steps to make available all the data that support their work (including raw data) and full methodological workings (including the computer codes).”
Essentially a whitewash, but not unexpected. The real meat was Jones’s admission that there had been no “statistically significant” global warming for the past 15 years. This panel “found no reason in this inquiry to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, that ‘global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity’.” In other words, they ignored the implications of Jones’s testimony.
Interesting choice of words, though: ‘induced’—not as strong as ’caused’, and more strong than ‘influenced’. Is that a sign of a softening of the government’s position?
/Mr Lynn
They have an election coming up and after the expenses fiasco just need to be seen to be doing something once in a while. There seems to have been a deal to let the University take the flak – merely an administrative bureaucratic thing.
They have absolutely no expertise to make judgements and no desire to rock boats when employment may be required and companies are seeking to profit from political largesse for ‘green’ activity. Even if they felt is pertinent they would not have stood up and risked rocking the boat.
In any case the UK Parliament and the associated government are of little consequence these days. The main decisions are taken elsewhere. They know it, so they can feel OK about getting away with as little involvement as possible. Just enough to justify a press release and gather a little publicity.
So , they kicked the question of scientific validity back to the university . Anyone care to venture a guess as to how that will turn out ?
breathtaking!!! what a whitewash!!!
Private emails? They were discussing their publicly funded research using their publicly funded email accounts..
I’d hate to think what the governments attitude would be towards “private” emails sent by their own kind. Whitewashed with the same brush?
Look at the committee votes opn pps.52-54. every single vote showed the same break up on the committee … yep they weren’t prejudiced 😉
I have flakey memory, so can someone remind me…
Didn’t the CODE prove they deliberately modified data to hide the decline and increase warming ?
I was under the impression that there was evidence that the code they wrote un-ambiguously proved they fixed the results ??
Can someone please remind me of the events regarding that ???
I wonder if this white wash will hold? There is now too much knowlege about the bad science behind the scare stories to simply put it all back in the box. This report is so easy to knock down, I wonder if there are a big enough group of journalists to undermine the findings.
Richard Sharpe (17:08:17) :
Seems like more global warming is falling in the UK …
===================================
Spring in Northern Ireland …..
http://www.u.tv/News/Weather-causes-chaos-and-power-cuts/0288e74c-15b2-46db-a258-3fffcce32ce8
next up, the same results from the IPCC investigation.
As I watched the videos of the committee hearing just after they were held it occurred to me that the committee members were, after al, just politicians . . .
I had the impression that they already sensed where the hearing would go. Any really astute politician would.
I thought at the time, sadly, that my expectations for the hearing outcome were high. But I was hopeful.
My hope did not entirely fail me. Some progress was made toward more open science in the future.
I am not surprised by the report from the committee, just disappointed.
KEY POINT for me was the terminology they used in the report. Will comment on that later.
John
Guardian: Climate researchers ‘secrecy’ criticised – but MPs say science remains intact
(N.B. LEAKED)Leaked emails from UK’s Climate Research Unit show scientists withheld information – but inquiry blames university
The MPs were unable to look in detail at allegations that data had been deleted by Jones
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/31/climate-mails-inquiry-jones-cleared
Business Wk: Bloomberg: Alex Morales: U.K. Climate Science ‘Damaged’ by Leaked E-Mails, Lawmakers Say
The lawmakers also said that because a general election is due by June, they didn’t have enough time to hold an in-depth enquiry…
The lawmakers cleared Jones of dishonesty in one of the most widely-cited e-mails, in which he discussed a “trick” to hide the decline in one temperature record. Graham Stringer, one of the four members of the panel who attended the hearings and a lawmaker from the ruling Labour Party, voted against that conclusion. He argued that not enough evidence had been heard…
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-30/u-k-climate-science-damaged-by-leaked-e-mails-lawmakers-say.html
31 March: Norfolk EDP: Tara Greaves: UEA chief ‘cleared’ over Climatgate scandal
But one of the committee members, Graham Stringer, underlined the point that he had taken a dissenting view, and that he was less inclined to exonerate Prof Jones because he felt the committee should have made a more comprehensive inquiry into the whole issue…
http://www.edp24.co.uk/content/edp24/news/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=NewsSplash&tBrand=EDPOnline&tCategory=xDefault&itemid=NOED30%20Mar%202010%2019%3A19%3A49%3A333
UK Express: CLIMATE COVER-UP PROFESSOR CLEARED OF DISHONESTY
But one committee member, Labour MP Graham Stringer, said: “The committee has gone further than it should have done in trying to exonerate Professor Jones.
“And it went further than it should have in not saying we’ve found evidence that he had done things wrong.”..
A statement from the university added: “It is a matter of regret to us that the theft of emails and the misrepresentation of their contents has damaged the reputation of UK climate science.”
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/166157/Climate-cover-up-Professor-cleared-of-dishonesty
NYT: AP: U.K. Panel Calls Climate Data Valid
At the same time, the lawmakers stressed that their report, written after only a single day of oral testimony, did not cover all the issues and that two other inquiries into the integrity of the science would be more thorough. ..
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/science/earth/31climate.html
31 March: UK Times: Ben Webster: Climate-row professor Phil Jones should return to work, say MPs
An MP on the committee told The Times that, before this month’s public hearing, the members had agreed not to question Professor Jones too closely because of his fragile condition… http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7081921.ece
Independent: Leading article: Climate change fightback, part 1
But one thing is certain, judging from the select committee’s report: the consensus on global warming remains. It is a reality, and human activities are more than likely to be largely responsible. We owe scientists like Professor Jones a debt of gratitude for pointing this out.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-climate-change-fightback-part-1-1931449.html
Not a total whitewash, but pretty damn close…
It takes a while to read 65 pages. Regrettable that.
But it is clear they didn’t want to find anything and came very close to the goal.
Well played.
LOL, considering that the committee only had proponents (one had to quit, another should have quit) and didn’t call the skeptics that DEALT with the CRU’s dishonesty, I mean “standard climate science practice that needs to be changed”, this is hardly surprising. I did though like how they are using “consensus” while ignoring all the tampering with peer review mentioned in those emails.
From the minutes at the end, it seems that Graham Stringer was always a dissident on contentious wording.
Seems that there were 3 warmists and 1 denier. These whitewashes are a joke. It will be interesting what Stringer says of the report.