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
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.”
UH HUH….but there are plenty of times when refs’ bad calls queer the game, Wren….so your point is nonsense!
As far as your expected cries of “whitewash”….what if it really WAS a whitewash??
Would it matter then whether or not things turn out “their” way or not??
Reasonable minds in search of the truth would not care if it turned out “their” way or not, right, wren? As long as the truth came out??
The problem is here…is that the truth has not come out.
The best part about it is, wren, the truth WILL always eventually surface.
The question is…will people who are blind and loyal to one cause or the other, not be able to examine the truth for the truth’s sake???
Given this quote from the report, which I will leave you with, I don’t think so:
“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”.
Retarded, backwards, assumption-dominated Groupthink at its worst.
Maybe this is a reason that the British Empire faded….and the USA one is not far behind.
DUH!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Am I the only one that is chilled by the statement,
Note the finality of the word “will”, not might or may but “will”.
Even in this (marginal) reproach of the shameful actions of Jones and the CRU there is the brazen grab for the public’s wallet.
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.
====
I agree. The science should open for all to see. Of course that may increase the cost, but it will be worth it.
Wren (20:50:50) : “I like the way allegations based on suspicions boomerang on the alleger. That’s justice.”
Huh? What boomerang? What is your motivation here? Is it logic? Or is it some emo “that’s justice” BS?
What boomerang, Wren? Nothing really has changed.
In your mind, maybe.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Robert E. Phelan (19:51:14) :
“a patriot who certainly knows his place is to never question authority”
I’m a US citizen, so I hardly think my patriotism would influence me on a matter regarding British Parliament. Quite the opposite.
“I’d urge you to read C. Wright Mills’ The Power Elite for a start and then check out the following”
Umm, sounds like a good book, but not relevant here. I’m not appealing to authority, my point is that the committee has had access to and reviewed all the evidence, including lab books and unpublished data from the lab. As an outside observer, I’m more inclined to trust their opinion than that of the group of commentors from an AGW denial blog.
As for your links, again i don’t see the relevance to the House of Commons Science and Technology committee, or its report, which is the topic at hand. None of the committee members are listed as members of Globe International,. since I don’t plan on spending the rest of my night following up, perhaps you can enlighten me as to what your point was? That is, if you’re talking about the subject at hand. Let’s not get sidetracked here, your links seem to focus on the separate University Inquiry.
Finally, I have to wonder whether you question the climatologists simply because they are experts? You have every right to question them, but if you want to be taken seriously you’d better quit your day job and start doing some real research in the area. It’s quite easy to postulate from ignorance, its another thing altogether to really study a subject and come up with legitimate new ideas. Keep in mind that the scientific method that produced AGW is exactly the same one that resulted in electricity, the industrial revolution, and the internet, all of which I can be reasonably sure that you rely on every day.
Wren (20:44:23) :
According to the article, Greenpeace reports Koch giving $73m to climate sceptic groups ’spreading inaccurate and misleading information’. >>
Ah, yes, that paragon of virtue whose own founder quit in disgust of what they have become, Greenpeace, has done a study. I read the article and I read the list of donations and what they were for.
Can you, or Greenpeace, provide one solitary single scrap of documentation to show that there was an agreement to mislead that was being paid for? Is there a single email or letter talking about “hiding” things or perhaps one about a “trick”? When you holler really loud do you conclude that a few moments later someone mocks you from far away by repeating what you say?
The code provided looked pretty damning, but there is nothing to say they used it, AFAICT. “We just wrote that code, but we never used it.”
In other words, it is like someone sneaking around the back of the bank at midnight with drills, explosives, and a crowbar, and saying they were just out for a stroll in the cool air. The crowbar? the explosives? Exercise, man! Weight training! Stop being so suspicious!
Hang on, let me take that back. It is actually more like being caught the day after the bank breakin with all the breakin materials and with cctv proving you took them around the back of the bank the night before.
Here’s one Wall Streeter’s take on it, from bloomberg.com. If this proposed transparency actually happens, the whole thing will fall apart thanks to people like Anthony et al here. But transparency is often promised.
The two other enquiries noted would also help, if they happen.
March 31 (Bloomberg) — “Britain’s global warming scientists damaged their reputation by “unacceptable” withholding of data in response to freedom of information requests, said a panel of lawmakers who probed the so-called climategate scandal.
Parliament’s Science and Technology Committee said the University of East Anglia’s “culture of non-disclosure” in relation to its climate research may have broken freedom of information laws by failing to publish data sought by critics of global warming theory.
The 59-page report is the most detailed look by lawmakers into the controversy that erupted in November when thousands of e-mails were hacked from the school’s computer servers shortly before world leaders met in Copenhagen to discuss a treaty aimed at keeping a lid on climate change.
“What was reprehensible is that this area of science is of such global importance economically and politically that there was not a culture of releasing all the data and methodology as a matter of course,” panel Chairman Phil Willis said in London before the report was released today. “That is how things should be in the future.”
The e-mails from the university’s Climatic Research Unit allowed global warming skeptics, including U.S. Senator James Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma, to question data making the case that humans are causing worldwide increases in the temperature.
‘Damaged the Reputation’
“The disclosure of CRU e-mails has damaged the reputation of U.K. climate science and, as views on global warming have become polarized, any deviation from the highest scientific standards will be pounced on,” the committee wrote.
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.
They cleared Phil Jones, head of the school’s Climatic Research Unit, of wrongdoing, saying he acted “in line with common practice,” in not publishing all his methods and computer codes.
Jones stepped aside from his post in December pending completion of an investigation. In one e-mail, he wrote of deleting files rather than handing data to skeptics. In a Nov. 24 statement, the school said no record had been deleted or altered.
Jones Cleared
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.
The members of Parliament said there was “prima facie” evidence to suggest Jones’s research unit has breached the U.K. Freedom of Information Act of 2000 and that responsibility for this lay with the university, not the climate unit.
The university said in an e-mailed statement that it recognizes the need for it to reassess how it deals with freedom of information requests and that it will provide more support to its academics. The school said it welcomed the lawmakers’ “largely positive” report.
“There was a culture of not being cooperative with people that they thought were trying to undermine them,” said Evan Harris, a Liberal Democrat lawmaker who serves on the committee. “The take-home message from all of this is there must be a culture of openness.”
Two further enquiries are being following the e-mail leak: one to review the science published by the University of East Anglia, and another into the content of the e-mails themselves.”
“Hiding the Decline . . . . not part of systematic attempt to mislead.”
Well one thing is for sure the masses aren’t going to buy that.
They will shrug it off with a chuckle and mark it down as just yet another governmental committee made up of a bunch of over-aged and senile dunces that got the job because of being political hacks.
Some of the “Great” is gone out of Great Britain. One can only hope the call for transparency is retroactive.
Wren – Greenpeace “says” many things. And The Guardian prints them. If you really followed the money it would not take you where you obviously want it to go. Just the opposite.
I expected whitewash. I did not expect whitewash mixed with bleach. Wow.
@ur momisugly davidmhoffer (20:39:00):
lol
Dave N (17:19:15) :
Private emails? They were discussing their publicly funded research using their publicly funded email accounts..
———
The University of East Anglia is a “public” research university in Norwich, England. In the United Kingdom, all universities are funded by government teaching and research grants except for the University of Buckingham. However, unlike in Continental European countries, the British government does not own the universities’ assets and university staff are not civil servants. United Kingdom universities are therefore better described as independent institutions with public funding, rather than public universities per se.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_university
Most of UAE income and assets are private, from endowments, tuition, contract work, running student housing and meals, etc.
http://www.uea.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.138770!signed%200809%20accounts.pdf
CRU Professor and staff emails are as private as those of BP’s top scientist, Steven Koonin, or CEO Dr. Hayward. Stealing Dr. Hayward’s embarrassing emails from 1990 onward is just as illegal as stealing Dr. Jone’s emails. Even when the British Government owned BP (as the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company) the public did not have a legal right to access BP executive files and phone calls.
Even if exposing crimes,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7062669.stm
it is best to lay low after stealing information. That’s why the CRU “whistle-blower” has remained hidden – they could still be prosecuted.
ac patriot-“Keep in mind that the scientific method that produced AGW is exactly the same one that resulted in electricity, the industrial revolution, and the internet, all of which I can be reasonably sure that you rely on every day.”
LOL
ac, in the spirit of the committee’s report, that makes eminent sense..
Of course they are going to side with AGW – to do otherwise they would have to admit the massive carbon taxes imposed are illegal and need to be rescinded. Plus they would expose themselves for the fools they are.
“Can you, or Greenpeace, provide one solitary single scrap of documentation to show that there was an agreement to mislead that was being paid for? Is there a single email or letter talking about “hiding” things or perhaps one about a “trick”? When you holler really loud do you conclude that a few moments later someone mocks you from far away by repeating what you say?”
Yeah….Wren….show one single email in the of impropriety on the “other” side.
Let’s see it. Show it.
The burden of proof….is on you.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
This is the state machine in action, they are the perfect representation of a state machine looking after the states interests.
The truth is buried and the facts manipulated to suit their own agenda, they care nothing for the truth and they care even less for the long term reputation of science.
Science is merely a tool to be used for political means and ends by a political class so used to lying and getting away with it that they actually believe themselves to be untouchable.
Dissapointing? Certainly. Unexpected? No.
The lying state at work, the state that has lied to us for so long now lost in a fog of lies of its own making that they can no longer recognize their precarious situation.
The lying state no longer sees that the lies they spread are no longer believed, so immersed in lies they are now even lying to themselves. When a state begins lying to itself there is no hope for that state.
The truth is emerging as the sun in the morning, it cannot be stopped by the lying state anymore than the tide can be held back by state diktat. We should rejoice at this report, the state has lost its way and its moral authority and more importantly is being seen by all to have lost those things.
We are seeing the lying state for what it has become, we are seeing what lurks behind the curtain of lies and it truly is a pathetic sight, let them continue to lie, to themselves and us because every single lie now betrays them, they are destroying themselves now with every word they utter.
“According to the article, Greenpeace reports Koch giving $73m to climate sceptic groups ’spreading inaccurate and misleading information’.”
As usual, Greenpeace supplied no facts at all, just allegations. Just what was inaccurate and misleading – other than the Greenpeace press releases?
I don’t see why there’s an uproar. WTF did you expect?
The committee isn’t in a position to judge the science. Their job was to determine whether or not CRU was operating grossly inconsistently with UEA and/or the community as a whole.
They concluded that CRU/UEA were operating consistently but bluntly stated that they didn’t like it. It reads like a reprimand; bear in mind the lack of authority of the committee itself.
This is a win.
Wren — According to the article, Greenpeace reports Koch giving $73m to climate sceptic groups ’spreading inaccurate and misleading information’.
Oooooh. 73 *whole* million? Wow.
Good heavens, this isn’t even the daily budget for the AGW machine. Maybe you ought to look up the greenpeace budget.
“Wren (21:00:58) :
I agree. The science should open for all to see. Of course that may increase the cost, but it will be worth it.”
How so? Other “science” isn’t more expensive because it’s open for all to see.
@ac patriot (21:05:27) : “I’m not appealing to authority, my point is that the committee has had access to and reviewed all the evidence, including lab books and unpublished data from the lab. As an outside observer, I’m more inclined to trust their opinion than that of the group of commentors from an AGW denial blog.”
That’s absolute nonsense! There is nothing in the report that suggests they did any such thing. Quite the contrary; they said they did not review the science. They clearly did not interview any skeptics. And all their “data” is simply regurgitated quotes from Jones and CRU. Under the circumstances, there is no reason whatever to trust their opinion.
Manipulating data, covering up the truth, plotting against your opposition—usual fare for politicians. So how would they be able to see anything wrong here?
DCC – Exactly. Just what “innacurate and misleading” information was ‘spread’ ?
So much for that tired old ‘Big Oil’ conspiracy theory.
On the other hand, there is abundant evidence of a conspiracy to spread bogus and very scary information by Big Green Inc., as usual.