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.
Vincent (01:42:32) :
You’re confusing “mature science” with “useful science”.
In 1970, the U.S. Surgeon General required the following label to be put on cigarette packages: Warning: The Surgeon General Has Determined that Cigarette Smoking is Dangerous to Your Health
Medical science still does not fully understand lung cancer, heart disease, or emphysema at a molecular level, or in the context of the full genetic diversity of a population, or in the context of other health factors such as environmental chemicals, drinking alcohol, not enough exercise, or bad sleeping patterns. It could be centuries before medical science understands all this and can use it to make precise predictions and treatments.
But the warning in 1970 was still sound – and if a person ignored it in 1970, there’s a very good chance they are dead now. That person could have argued, in 1970, that “medical science doesn’t know everything”.
True, but not much consolation once they get lung cancer. You can’t go back four decades for a do-over. At least when that person dies a painful death, it was their own fault.
Trumped by the Troll with a shiny new Ph.D. up his sleeve. Whodathunkit?
To the greenpeace afficionados who “exposed” Koch millions.
“Between 2005 and 2008, the Kansas-based conglomerate that “most Americans have never heard of” spent nearly 25 million dollars to fund “organizations of the ‘climate denial machine,'” environmental protection group Greenpeace said in the report.
Between 2006 and 2009, Koch Industries and the family that founded and still controls the conglomerate spent 37.9 million dollars on direct lobbying on oil and energy issues –”
Let’s put these numbers in perspective:
The well publicized arctic specialist from University of Manitoba, Dr. David Barber of “rotten ice” fame here was leading a research program:
““Canwest Dec. 6 2008, Kevin Rollason: “Mr. Barber, who will present his preliminary findings at the International Arctic Change 2008 conference in Quebec City next week, was the scientist in charge of the Circumpolar Flaw Lead System Study (CFL), a $40-million Arctic research project.”
And to think that even Revkin NYT had this to say about the rotten ice paper that made the world tour of MSM except in his blog:
“The reason I didn’t write on Dave Barber’s paper when it came out (even though he was featured in our 2005 Discovery-Times “Arctic Rush” documentary and is a highly regarded scientist), is that I got a lot of pushback from a batch of Arctic Ocean ice specialists who immediately said that the Beaufort is a special case and cited various reasons to handle those findings cautiously. I may revisit and query Dr. Barber and them anew. That’s how I try to avoid what I call “whiplash journalism” (or blogging). Covering every paper can lead to real neck trauma when focused on the more complicated parts of climate science (even as the basics are clear). ”
And these $40 million research project is only ONE project…
How much does Gore spend to promote AGW? Who are his donors?
How much of official government money goes into AGW promotion? Copenhagen?
[snip]
Calling other posters/readers denialists is unacceptable.]
“”” navyjoe (13:31:58) :
george e smith; does this do it for you?
Gary,
I appreciate that reading these notes is tedious, time consuming and more than you want. But F. Levin claimed that he explained the “Hide the Decline Trick as a standard, statistical calculation. The following Emails disclose the true nature of the “trick”. Extensive, intensive manipulation of the crummy data is evident. This was no “ho-hum” math exercise. “””
I’m not sure of your point Gary; but thanks for collecting up those text sections. I haven’t read all 1000 or how many e-mails; and have better things to do than do that. But I have read what folks who have read allt hat have said, And I am comfortable with what they ahve reported.
Among the things that were reported on when this story first broke on WUWT, was that sizeable sections of computer code were published here (they’re in the archives) and people who write code (I don’t) explained just what those sections did; and point to the line by line comment of the code writers as to what the routines did.
It was also pointed out that those skullduggery sections were commented out. In which case it is not known (by me) whether any such sections were ever used, or if so, on what raw data they were used, and what published output resulted from that.
BUT, anyone using the program COULD remove the comment delimiters, and run the program with the sections operating, and then replaced the semi-colons or whatever after getting their ouptput. So no we don’t know if those sections were used; but we do know for sure that they were there and could have been used.
And in my view their very existence is contrary to good scientific practice principles.
So yes I think the whole thing stinks, and the perpetrators ought to be fired.
But my bottom line position is still that it is a storm in a teacup, because that output, and that of GISStemp, is of little consequence in explaining how the earth climate system works; it is of no more value than the average telephone number ion the Manhattan telephone directory; whcih you can calculate for yourself from that directory.
There is no simple physical link between the HADCrut output, and what it claims to have happened to the anomaly summary of the set of thermometers that CRU uses; and the net energy flow on planet earth. Each different terrain reacts to local temperatures in different ways, as to energy flows.
Ocean surface temperatures control evaporation, conduction, convection and radiation energy flows from that surface; whereas an arid tropical desert reacts quite differntly when at the same temperature as an oceanic surface.
So HADCRut, and GISStemp anomaly output; however they obtain it and process the raw data, is quite irrelevent to earth’s climate.
The total extreme range of surface temperatures on earth; sans volcanoes and other thermal hotspots runs from at least +60 deg C in the tropical deserts under noonday sun, down to -90 deg C at the coldest antarctic winter midnights in places like Vostok. And in principle, that total range of 150 deg C could exist all at the same time (it didn’t but it could).
So we should be concerned about a few hundredths of a degree C change over a year; a change not in the earth’s mean surface temperature, which we have no means of determining to that precision; but in a mathematical concoction of the outputs of a handful of poorly distributed thermomenters, and an equally poor historical range of those temperature readings.
We are just deluding ourselves that GISStemp and HADCrut have any scientific significance whatsoever.
Might as well go out and count the average number of animals per hectare (ant size or bigger), and report changes in that as a global mean wihtout regard for what sort of animals you are counting. Has about as much scientific value.
But as I said, thanks for the little tete-a-tete from those e-mails; I don’t plan on reading the rest of them.
“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”
” 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.”
So, they didn’t have a brief to question the science of global warming but they agree with it anyway, and they found a culture of non-disclosure and deleted information aimed at sceptics, but do not give a reason why CRU wanted to do this. How odd. But anyone who thought that we would get anything other than a whitewash from Mr. Willis’s committee must have been dreaming. How could a lowly MP in the British House of Commons possibly dare to put his head above the parapet against the world governments, The United Nations, The EU and the very many organisations with vested ointerests. And perhaps more important than anythingl, what future had an MP in the House
sorry my blog above seemed to ‘submit’ without being finished as below.
“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”
” 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.”
So, they didn’t have a brief to question the science of global warming but they agree with it anyway, and they found a culture of non-disclosure and deleted information aimed at sceptics, but do not give a reason why CRU wanted to do this. How odd. But anyone who thought that we would get anything other than a whitewash from Mr. Willis’s committee must have been dreaming. How could a lowly MP in the British House of Commons possibly dare to put his head above the parapet against world governments, The United Nations, The EU and the many organisations with vested interests around the world. And perhaps more important than anything, what future had an MP in the House of Commons who dared to oppose the Prime Minister who appointed him, and thus be seen to becfome a member of the ‘flat earth society’
Having watched the proceedings, and read the transcripts, and heard the Chairman’s (and also Lawson’s) interview on the radio, I conclude that CRU and Climate-‘science’ are dead ducks.
The bonfire has been lit, and even if the subsequent Muir and Oxburgh enquiries try to suppress it, the truth is out.
And rather than have a cathartic pyre, it will likely smoulder away emitting a great stink that will do incalculable damage for science and to western culture.
Will Muir or Oxburgh, like Lawson and Monckton, do the right thing?
An extended interview with Phil Willis on Today in Parliament the Friday before Jones was due to appear left me in no doubt about the general tone of the eventual report; and I have not been surprised.
To sum it up in a regular BBC approach to matters they do not wish to report on as they go against their editorial policy “Move along there… nothing to see”
Phelan’s Law Number 27: There is no end to life’s lessons in humility.
I really, really, really thought I was done with the scientifically illiterate troll ca patriot but I’m wrong. Never give a troll the last word…. so I did a little research. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry, so I’m doing both. It turns out our trollish friend really does have a Ph.D. in Physics from a branch of the UC and is a blogger with a witty and sardonic sense of humor
http://fockingscience.blogspot.com/
and is rabidly progressive:
http://dakane.blogspot.com/
He is also a perfect example of why talking about conspiracy theories is so laughable. He knows everything that is currently known about carbon nano-tubes and nothing about science. He needs to add “false consciousness” to his topic list.
I’m a little behind on this particular subject.
As much as it makes me sick, it’s no surprise whatsoever.
You need to remember there is one over riding factor here.
The Parliament doesn’t really rule England anymore, it is a bunch of suckups to the EU and the UN.
what is the global agenda of the UN? To take over the world and take from the wealth of hard working nations and give it to the third world countries and themselves.
Parliament is just doing what it’s been told to do and no one has the lollies to stand up to people like George Soros or Obama or the UN General Secretary when it comes to things like this, they have to toe the line because they agreed to give up their sovereignty to the EU/UN. Who is Phil Jones working for? He’s reponrting to the IPCC/Pachauri and the UN, not the British government or it’s taxpayers.
And this is what Obama and Gore want to bring to our country.
Is it any surprise that the US Government hasn’t even gone this far in investigating Michael Mann for commiting perjury before the US Senate? Penn State did an investigation over the hockey stick incident and it was whitewashed as well. Students have begun a national petition drive to have him ousted from the University but we all know how that is going to turn out, a hearty pat on the back and a healthy bonus/raise.