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
The University needs to re-assess how it can
support academics whose expertise in FoI requests is limited.
In other words, it’s regrettable they broke all the rules.
Solution: They will now look into changing the rules to allow them to hide things.
Wow, that’s some paint job.
‘There, that outta do it. We’re better now, Stanley.’
Definition of an honest politician—- One who stays bought.
I guess these are honesty politicians because they are staying bought despite any facts shoved into their faces. Be interesting to find out who owns this set of slimy politicians… follow the money.
A thank you to Graham Stringer for his efforts to introduce objectivity into the report. This piece of political theater must have been a very frustrating experience for him.
I’m at a loss for words. Actually, I’m not, but the words on the tip of my tongue would probably get me [snipped]. The committee members are either ignorant or corrupt. I hope the subjects in the U.K. recotgnize this and hold Parliament accountable.
Just what I expected. Nothing much at all and plenty of whitewash.
Oops! My mistake! I thought this enquiry was intended to address the concerns of the sceptical community. While the report talks about problems with the public’s perception of climate science, it’s done nothing but compound the problem. Did they not know that we’d poke the holes in this report? Do they not understand that they’ve just handed the sceptics a fresh batch of kindling? As if we didn’t have enough to play with already!
Knowing what we know (and we bloody well do know what we know. We DID READ the emails, WE DO KNOW the history here, and we bloody well DO know the implications of dropping inconvenient segments of Briffa’s rings and retaining the rest), I’m not sure, any more, what the enquiry was supposed to achieve.
Climatology is a new science. It’s an entirely self-moderated group. A group that singularly failed in its obligations to the integrity of science in the broader sense.
The UEA clearly let the CRU do its thing, and supported it in whatever it wanted to do while ignoring all its scientific transgressions, because the bottom line is that it brought in buttloads of cash to the university.
As for the independence of the data sets, the report’s conclusion is idiocy. There is a clear case of incest between all the scientists producing these so-called “independent” value-adjusted datasets, and these datasets are demonstrably NOT independent at all. To suggest that the CRU’s work is independently verified by the existence of, and correlation with, these other datasets is an insult to our intelligence.
Oh man, I could go on for hours!
[snip]
The committee found that there was no evidence of scientific wrongdoing, and no systematic attempts to mislead. What makes you think you know so much more than they do? You would have accepted no other outcome than your preconceived notions of “guilty”, typical of conspiracy theorists. Tell me, is the New World Order influencing parliament now?
Please remember these are class conscious politicians. Results as expected.
Fabulous report,” In line with the common practise in the climate science community.”Exactly why they are not, cannot be scientists. Scientists by definition practise science by use of the scientific method. As the committee did not examine the science, why would they feel compelled to make these statements?Climate science? A wonderful idea. When might we taxpayers see some? 2010 just keeps getting better.
I found the report robust.
“…the Committee considers that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community but that those practices need to change…”
Gee. Let’s see. Its common practice for thugs to commit assault and battery, breaking and entering, extortion and other crimes. Those practices need to change but since its so common the committee sees absolutely no real problem. The thugs should simply be more polite when they commit their crimes.
The Committee has made themselves and accessory to the scientific fraud after the fact. They are just as guilty as anyone of the so called scientists who defrauded the public by accepting grants and cooking or inventing the data to fit their claims.
Now what would the Mad Queen in Alice’s Wonderland have to say about this?
Sickening! To conclude that “lack of transparency” was only an institutional policy shortcoming for which Dr. Phil should not be held accountable is simply breathtaking in its mendacity. With not a word about the good doctor’s conspiracy to stack the “peer review deck” or any of the other egregious, actions revealed in the CRU E-mails the review can only be seen as a whitewash. This report reflects the same contempt for the intellect of the general public we now see rampant in in our own U.S. government actions. Apparently, we are considered children who are to be herded like simple-minded cattle with the aid of fairy tales and bogeymen couched in voodoo scientific terms and sophisticated statistical blizzards of bull dung.
OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!!!!
If only they used their heads for purposes other than a whitewash…
OT, but it looks that not many thing left without global warming involvement
From Fox news
Plague Proof
As Christians begin to observe Holy Week, scientists are claiming that they found physical evidence of the 10 biblical plagues described in the Old Testament.
If you are wondering how the story belongs in The Meltdown, here’s your answer: Researchers say global warming was to blame for the plagues. The London Telegraph reports, “The scientists claim the plagues can be attributed to a chain of natural phenomena triggered by changes in the climate.”
And since they didn’t have SUVs in and around the year 1213 B.C., I guess humans are not to blame for global warming after all.
source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,590091,00.html
“leaked e-mails”
So that’s it?!!! Finality; they were leaked, not hacked?
We skeptics expected this report to be a whitewash (it is), but some of the critical conclusions are applicable to the wider Climate Science community, and certainly apply to US players, including James Hansen and Michael Mann.
I would like to see an official re-examination of the actions of NASA GISS in altering their assessment of 1934 vs 1998 temperature data six times between July 1999 and August 2007 in an apparent attempt to show that 1934 was not warmer. (See the graph and image of GISS internal email. ) This attempt to make the warmth of 1934 disappear may be as eggregious as the manipulation of data by Michael Mann to make the Medieval Warm Period disappear in what Phil Jones of the UK Climatic Research Unit (CRU) correctly called “Mike’s Nature trick … to hide the decline”. Both unscientific data manipulations were done by US scientists using US public money.
Despite its timidity, the UK Parliamentary report comes to three correct and damaging conclusions:
1) The CRU’s “refusal to share raw data and computer codes … were in line with common practice in the climate science community but … those practices need to change.”
This is an important statement of principle that applies to the wider climate science community, including the important part of it in the US.
2) “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.”
This is not ordinary science where some honest mistakes and later correction are normal. In the case of climate science, the results are triggering worldwide expenitures of trillions of dollars, so the science must be absolutely solid and undeniable.
3) “… the focus of the inquiry is the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research … It is not an inquiry into global warming.”
This report does nothing to confirm (or deny) the role or level of human activities in global warming.
BOTTOM LINE: Although this UK Parliamentary inquiry has undoubtedly been easy on the climate scientists at the heart of Climategate, it does conclude that the entire climate science community has, by “common practice” refused to share data and computer codes, in violation of the accepted scientific processes and these practices must change, particularly in light of the tremendous amounts of public expenditures that hang on the results.
John Norris (19:09:15) :
“leaked e-mails”
I’ve been thinking on this for a while, on and off.
I think both sides should accept the phrase “harvested emails”. Neither negative nor positive connotations (unless you’re a Quatermass fan), and could have been done internally or externally.
/ Insert 2c to continue..
“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).”
But, what about the data, methodology and codes that DOESN’T support their work!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
ac patriot (18:47:30) :
[snip]
The committee found that there was no evidence of scientific wrongdoing, and no systematic attempts to mislead. What makes you think you know so much more than they do? You would have accepted no other outcome than your preconceived notions of “guilty”, typical of conspiracy theorists. Tell me, is the New World Order influencing parliament now?
————————————–
Reply:
I don’t recall a single instance in the past 15 years where Phil Jones has admitted that there has been no statistically-significant warming.
Now, call me a prude if you want, but I would certainly call his lack of candor considering the amount of money involved to be
….A SYSTEMATIC ATTEMPT TO MISLEAD!
Well, they failed to hide themselves hiding the decline. Lets see how they do with hiding the collapse!
Once again the point is missed. It is not that they used the word “trick” it is what the trick was. It figures politicians would not care about tricks.
The “committee” is absolutely full of crap. The leaked info destroys any possible way to take the supposed climate record or the supposed warming of the last 150 years seriously. It shows that a significant portion of the supposed warming or perhaps a significant majority of it is the product of fudge factors and deliberate data manipulation.
In addition it proves a manipulation of the peer review process and a corruption of scientific method that hasn’t been seen since Lysenko.
Phil Willis should be deeply embarassed and ashamed or should at least have to pass a middle school level test on scientific method. Perhaps that would be enough to stop them from saying things that are this stupid.
ac patriot (18:47:30) :
The committee found that there was no evidence of scientific wrongdoing, and no systematic attempts to mislead. What makes you think you know so much more than they do? You would have accepted no other outcome than your preconceived notions of “guilty”, typical of conspiracy theorists. Tell me, is the New World Order influencing parliament now?
Hmmm…. a patriot who certainly knows his place is to never question authority… ac, it was a white wash, another form of hide-the-decline and yes, most of the regular readers of this blog do know far more than those all-wise, all-knowing solons in the Thames, which is why we can recognize Sawyeresque handiwork.
As far as conspiracies and the New World Order influencing Parliament, I’d urge you to read C. Wright Mills’ The Power Elite for a start and then check out the following:
http://climateaudit.org/2010/03/24/globe-international/
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/3/24/globe-a-vehicle-for-avoiding-foi.html
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/3/25/globe-page-at-the-house-of-commons.html
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmallparty/register/memi328.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/7530961/Can-we-trust-the-Climategate-inquiry.html
http://www.globeinternational.org/
Develop some critical thinking and learn to connect the dots. Now click your heels and salute…
“The Committee found no reason in this inquiry to challenge the scientific consensus… 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.”
So, they weren’t actually looking at the “science” but are confident in saying there is no problem with the aforesaid “science.”