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
Ron Broberg
“GGM (17:21:19) : Didn’t the CODE prove they deliberately modified data to hide the decline and increase warming ?
No.”
The answer to this question is clearly yes. why would you post such a simple bald faced lie?
Basically they just repeated what Jones said. In fact, they tended to put a better spin on it than Jones did. Jones said, for example:
“[The three groups] are all working independently so we may be using a lot of common data but the way of going from the raw data to a derived product of gridded temperatures and then the average for the hemisphere and the globe is totally independent between the different groups.” In other words, we start with much the same data, but we screw it up differently. At the same time he said most researchers prefer to start with the “corrected” data. No mention of the common climate models.
The reports quotes him, but then characterizes it as different groups using different data coming to the same conclusion. They also quote a CRU submission that claims all of their data modifications have been publicly documented! If that were true, then we would have access to the original data just by removing the “corrections.” This on the same day that NASA says their data is worse than CRU’s
Other than a bunch of lousy data that has been “modified” and computer models that come up with exaggerated results, produced by a small clique of newly minted climate scientists, what is there to worry about?
Will this obvious whitewash lead to some more “leakage” from “Harry”?
For the, apparently ever suffering U.K. citizens, just a few things to note come election time: Remember these names.
Amendment proposed, at the end of line 5 to insert “Given the increasingly hostile attitudes of both sides on this issue, it is vital that these two inquiries have at least one member each who is a reputable scientist, and is sceptical of anthropogenic climate change”.—(Graham Stringer.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 1
Graham Stringer
Noes, 3
Mr Tim Boswell
Dr Evan Harris
Dr Brian Iddon
Or how about this little beauty:
Amendment proposed, after “answer” in line 3 add “Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact.”—(Dr Evan Harris.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 3
Mr Tim Boswell
Dr Evan Harris
Dr Brian Iddon
Noes, 1
Graham Stringer
Question put, That the paragraph, as amended, stand part of the Report.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 3
Mr Tim Boswell
Dr Evan Harris
Dr Brian Iddon
Noes, 1
Graham Stringer
Paragraph 138 read and agreed to.
Also:
Question put, That the summary be added to the Report.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 3
Mr Tim Boswell
Dr Evan Harris
Dr Brian Iddon
Noes, 1
Graham Stringer
And Finally:
Motion made, and Question put, That the Report be the Eighth Report of the Committee to the House.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 3
Mr Tim Boswell
Dr Evan Harris
Dr Brian Iddon
Noes, 1
Graham Stringer
Resolved, That the Report be the Eighth Report of the Committee to the House.
Politicians become concerned, based on anecdotal chit chat, that mankind is impacting the climate due to industrial activity.
They spend billions of taxpayer dollars over the years to fund studies to find evidence of this impact.
Science, wallowing in all this largesse, “finds” the evidence.
Now, when these same scientists are exposed as cutting corners, the politicians “investigate.” And what, I wonder, do they find? Ahh, the scientists were a tad naughty, but their science is fine, there’s a consensus, it’s all agreed, so we can continue on with business as usual. We haven’t been made fools of, after all. Let’s cut ’em another check to find more evidence of global warming.
+++++++++
About as expected. Wouldn’t want themselves to be revealed as fools and dupes. Hey — they got what they paid for.
Gail Combs (18:21:42) :
“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.”
Well said….and worth repeating, which is why I posted it here.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
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.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
I guess you should never leave it to a politician to decide what is right and wrong.
As Pilate derisively said, “What is truth?”
As soon as they tried to maked the Medieval Warm Period disappear, they were in trouble. Now, in addition to rewriting history in order that it not discredit the science, they are trying to rewrite the dictionary so that it does not discredit the cover up? What does “hide” mean again?
1.to conceal from sight; prevent from being seen or discovered: Where did she hide her jewels?
2.to obstruct the view of; cover up: The sun was hidden by the clouds.
3.to conceal from knowledge or exposure; keep secret: to hide one’s feelings.
–verb (used without object)
4.to conceal oneself; lie concealed: He hid in the closet.
–noun
5.British. a place of concealment for hunting or observing wildlife; hunting blind.
—Verb phrase
6.hide out, to go into or remain in hiding: After breaking out of jail, he hid out in a deserted farmhouse.
Patrick Davis (20:06:24) :
Depends on if enough line has been let out and the hook securely taken. The really big boys need bigger fish to toss under the bus. Then Harry may sing more.
Mr Lynn (17:14:54) :
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.”….
=======
Real meat? You might think that if you don’t know what “statistically significant” means.
On the mishandling of Freedom of Information (FoI) requests, the Committee considers that much of the responsibility should lie with the University, not CRU.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
After all the CRU guys never did tell anyone there was one. Making it ignorance is 0% of the law.
All in all one of the best efforts of whitewashing I’ve seen in my life, maybe the best.
No real surprise, since the UK has come to this: click
As somebody said “lots of smoke but no gun.” I expected cries of “whitewash.” People say that when things don’t turn out their way. It’s kinda like those who say we would have won the game , but the refs cheated.
Wouldn’t that be something. It’s too much to hope for, I guess.
Ron Broberg says this:
“GGM (17:21:19) : Didn’t the CODE prove they deliberately modified data to hide the decline and increase warming ?
No”
Paul has given the succinct reply but this denialism needs to be rebutted in more detail. But where to start given the overwhelming detail available; Briffa’s little saga is as good as any; years of obfuscation and when inadvertant revelation occurs we find data so constrained and tortured as to be of no meaning except to support a pre-ordained conclusion; on second thoughts Paul’s approach is the best; anyone who can reach Broberg’s conclusion is beyond rational persuasion.
Have any of you people ever considered the possibility that perhaps the explanations that have been offered, and accepted by this committee, were true? No? thought not.
Have any of you people ever considered the possibility that perhaps the explanations that have been offered, and accepted by this committee, were true? No? thought not.
Good point.
Hmmm.
Mmm.
Mmm.
Nah . . .
Wren (20:23:17) :
As somebody said “lots of smoke but no gun.” I expected cries of “whitewash.” People say that when things don’t turn out their way. It’s kinda like those who say we would have won the game , but the refs cheated>>
But… they did cheat. and lie. and make up new rules as they went along. What? Disclosing data is standard in science? WELL, this is CLIMATE science, we have our OWN rules. What? Sticking two completely different data sets together and calling it one isn’t standard in science? Well, this is CLIMATE science, we have our OWN rules. What? History doesn’t support the theory? Well, this is CLIMATE science. We write our OWN history. What? We were caught using words like “trick” and “hide”? Well, this is CLIMATE science, we have our OWN meanings for those words. What, the temperature record shows no statisticaly significant change for 15 years? Well, this is CLIMATE science we have our OWN definition of significant. What? The polar ice is increasing, snow extent is increasing, ocean heat content is decreasing? Well, this is CLIMATE science. We have our OWN meanings for those things, and they mean the world is getting wamer. If we have to define 17 degrees C as being warmer than 18 degrees C, well by golly that’s what we’re going to do, this is CLIMATE science where the conclusions have been made and the data had better pay attention because in CLIMATE science that’s the rule, the theory dictates the data.
Really Wren, you are a wonderful source of amusement. I think there are two possibilities. Either YOU think WE are dumb enough to buy all that, or…..
My apologies to ACTUAL climate scientists, I know you are out there. It is unfortunate that the white wash attempt winds up looking more like tar and it gets on everyone.
They may have been given a pass by politicians but there is still the court of public opinion where right and wrong does matter.
Wren (20:17:16) :
I don’t know, but I think I just spotted a unit root O.O
From today’s guardian.uk
“US oil company donated millions to climate sceptic groups, says Greenpeace”
ExxonMobile? Nope.
Koch Industries
According to the article, Greenpeace reports Koch giving $73m to climate sceptic groups ‘spreading inaccurate and misleading information’.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment
Max Hugoson (17:51:21) : “1 Million Emails? Let’s say 1 minute per Email. Hum, 10^6/(24*365*60)/.3 = 6.4 years of work..presuming Dr. Jones was writing Emails at the rate of 1 per minute for 8 hours a day….”
But Max, a million is only 10² or 10³. Al Gore, the famous scientist, says the temperature of the Earth is millions of degrees. The estimated temperature of the core is about 10,000 degrees R, so a million must be roughly 100 to 1000, to climatological accuracy. Thus, under postmodern science and Newspeak mathematics, Dr. Jones only wrote at most 1000 emails. That’s what he meant by “a million.”
Science is dead, and justice has just been fatally wounded.
I think the problem is that someone has switched out the whitewash with white latex paint which is IR transparent. This causes them to experience warming when none actually exists.
davidmhoffer (20:39:00) :
Wren (20:23:17) :
As somebody said “lots of smoke but no gun.” I expected cries of “whitewash.” People say that when things don’t turn out their way. It’s kinda like those who say we would have won the game , but the refs cheated>>
But… they did cheat. and lie. and make up new rules as they went along. What? Disclosing data is standard in science? WELL, this is CLIMATE science, we have our OWN rules. What? Sticking two completely different data sets together and calling it one isn’t standard in science? Well, this is CLIMATE science, we have our OWN rules. What? History doesn’t support the theory? Well, this is CLIMATE science. We write our OWN history. What? We were caught using words like “trick” and “hide”? Well, this is CLIMATE science, we have our OWN meanings for those words. What, the temperature record shows no statisticaly significant change for 15 years? Well, this is CLIMATE science we have our OWN definition of significant. What? The polar ice is increasing, snow extent is increasing, ocean heat content is decreasing? Well, this is CLIMATE science. We have our OWN meanings for those things, and they mean the world is getting wamer. If we have to define 17 degrees C as being warmer than 18 degrees C, well by golly that’s what we’re going to do, this is CLIMATE science where the conclusions have been made and the data had better pay attention because in CLIMATE science that’s the rule, the theory dictates the data.
Really Wren, you are a wonderful source of amusement. I think there are two possibilities. Either YOU think WE are dumb enough to buy all that, or…..
My apologies to ACTUAL climate scientists, I know you are out there. It is unfortunate that the white wash attempt winds up looking more like tar and it gets on everyone.
======
I like the way allegations based on suspicions boomerang on the alleger. That’s justice.