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
I have been in contact with the office of the opposition leader M. Cameron a
I have been in contact with the office of the opposition leader M. Cameron and I’m afraid that the “Doing something is better than doing nothing” brigade are everywhere.
There will be no movement away from AGW anytime soon and no movement toward ‘real science’ either.
The dangerous part of having lifelong political class AGW leaders like Gore is that they have co-opted fellow politicians.
Gore may not be bright, but he is clever. GLOBE, and endless conferences in world class resorts means that in effect we have spent tax payer money to brainwash politicians.
A Wod: “Two things came up when somebody from the committee was interviewed on radio 4 was that: a) CRU has only 3 members of staff”.
I once joked it only took three people in a pub to create the HadCrut data: one to run the spreadsheet, one to upjust the figures and one to order the beer. It was supposed to be a joke, but the real joke was that it was true!
This was supposed to be the biggest problem facing mankind and as such we should have expected due levels of resources to be input to ensure the “science” was cast iron. But the more we saw the less people were really part of this overwhelming science until in the end at the climategate trial, we discovered that it was some nutty professor and presumably some underlings whose main task appears to have been making coffee and finding the data he was so apt to loose.
But, seriously it is pretty scary if you discover that your part time hobby represents a significant proportion of the total science effort in an area where trillions are being spent … even more scary when you strongly suspect from they got it wrong!
“We the jury find the defendant (us) innocent of all charges.”
Having read the report, I begin to suspect that the requirements of British national pride worked their way into the findings. CRU has global importance and reputation, and surely Parliament is mindful of that fact.
I detect the workings of this phenomenon chiefly in the handling of the FOIA history. The reasoning given for the admittedly unfortunate state of affairs there are that the world class British CRU scientists who are bent on saving the world were ill-served by the UEA FOIA bureaucrat wonks who should have advised them better.
That it was clearly the CRU people who lead the FOIA bureaucrats down the garden path of obfuscation and stonewalling, providing and arguing for the rationales justifying it, is handily ignored.
Dear ac patriot:
“the committee has had access to and reviewed all the evidence, including lab books and unpublished data from the lab. ”
Ummm… NO they did not. They most certainly did not have access to all of these things, and they most certainly did not review them. The SCIENCE review is being left to the University of East Anglia.
This particular Parliamentary committee looked at exactly ZERO of the things you claim that they looked at.
So….they will keep it on working, it´s too much “at risk”, too much money (most surely money from bailouts too) has been invested, and the “welfare” of humanity is in play; as WE are supposed to be the saviours of humanity we must enforce our “most dear and superior principles” as soon as possible.
Just don´t get nervous, the majority of people don´t know a thing, apart from a few bloggers-deniers who will soon disappear as intelligent measures about the internet be implemented (to many risks of hacking should be avoided, you know….) and it will be change into a new internet which will deliver the right and progressive content as it should be….
stephen richards (05:11:10) :
I have been in contact with the office of the opposition leader M. Cameron and I’m afraid that the “Doing something is better than doing nothing” brigade are everywhere>>
This Post Normal Science claptrap is everywhere. The matter is urgent, the science uncertain, the consequences disastrous. We are urged to take action, “just in case”.
The population of Earth has risen to 8 or 9 billion on the back of high carbon consumption. High carbon consumption fuels intensive farming practices that produce vastly more food than ever possible before, at lower cost. It fuels the transportation systems that deliver raw goods, food included, to the population centres that need them from the places that produce them. The high carbon economy supports three or four times the population that a low carbon economy is capable of.
So, in the interest of PNS, the matter is urgent, the science uncertain, and the consequences disastrous. Adoption of a low carbon economy will not, as claimed, redistribute wealth to the poor. It will only ensure that the rich can afford food, and the poor cannot. It will ensure that those who are starving will seek to take by force of arms from those who have food. Billions will die either in strife over dwindling food resources, or from starvation.
So, in an ubandance of a caution, based on the best PNS principles, faced with a calamity of extreme proportions, we must act upon the precautionary principles.
Drill for oil.
stephen richards: “I have been in contact with the office of the opposition leader M. Cameron and I’m afraid that the “Doing something is better than doing nothing” brigade are everywhere.”
Is that everywhere as in “all over the place” like Jones data, or is that everywhere as in all sitting in their one small political bunker ignoring the general public who they then expect to vote them into office?
Or is that “everywhere” as in conservative policies are everywhere and no where and if anyone finds one they get a prize?
The U.S. Senate will be investigating Jones for his conduct in administering any and all grants awarded by the U.S. government to UEA CRU. Including the $300k DOE grant currently administered by Jones. The Brit Parliament may be willing to led Jones slide, the US Senate may not.
Wren,
“It’s kinda like those who say we would have won the game , but the refs cheated.”
That does happen. About 10 years ago our local 3rd division soccer team got through to the FA cup semi-final to be played against a premier league team. Our team “scored” a winning goal which the ref immediately disallowed because it did not appear to cross the line. When the footage was shown on tv it was proved that the ball did cross the line and our 3rd division team was denied its rightfull history making place in the FA cup final.
No cheating perhaps, just a case of bad refereering. (Maybe he was under pressure to conform to the script.)
evanjones,
“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.”
Yeah, like the findings of the Hutton enquiry are true – ie Tony Blair did not mislead parliament over weapons of mass destruction. Oh wait – nobody believes that anymore.
Hmm.
Brendan H (02:24:43) :
Who is “most of us?” Delusions like that bring a smile to my face. Every poll shows most people are skeptical of the AGW scare, and the number of skeptics is steadily rising.
Jones is corrupt, as anyone reading the emails to and from him can plainly see. The comment about making the world safe for his grandchildren was a nice touch, though. It almost made me want to put my hand over my heart… until I remembered that this whole episode is about a corrupt clique being caught trying to convince a skeptical world, through devious shenanigans, that an increase in a harmless trace gas from 0.00038 of the air to 0.00048 – over 95% of which is not produced by human activity – will bring about runaway global warming and climate catastrophe. And the only fix is money. Lots more money, to battle the evil “carbon.”
As numerous commneters here pointed out over the past several months, this was set up as a whitewash of CRU corruption from the get-go. The committee had an agenda o fulfill, and were carefully chosen accordingly. They could be counted on.
If they had wanted the truth, a simple adversarial system, where skeptical scientists were able to question the CRU crew in front of the committee, would have produced the truth for all to see, and it would have destroyed the CRU and fatally damaged the bogus AGW scare. But that would have constituted a threat to their money, status and power. It could not be allowed to happen.
This is just politics, no more and no less. We predicted for months that it would end exactly this way. Some things are easily predictable.
davidmhoffer (06:43:12) : You are right. As Dr.Ravetz´s “post normal science” dictates (and he himself does not apply it to its own traditional principles), every measure it is being considered and applied, by the UN´s organisms, as for example all means of population control, from and the “day after pill” given to school girls above 14 years of age (as was done in Chile), free contraceptive pills for “poor women”, changes in legislation to allow abortion to “festivals of tubal ligation”(as were held in Peru ), from “specially formulated “vaccination” to keeping the DDT prohibition in the majority of countries,(which has provoked the reappearence of Dengue and Malaria illnesses all over Africa, South America, and last but not least, the egyptian mosquito in Central Park ,N.Y.included), non-reproductive sex promotion (gay marriages), pedophylia, etc.
All these measures will decrease the numbers of those carbon based nasty creatures which reproduce in growing numbers on that planet.
Be our most saint Ban Ki Moon praised for scaring to death the people of that planet with the menace of the AH1N1 virus so as to oblige goverments to enforce this, by all means, blessed vaccination, which will guilelessly propagate the 2001 chicken virus so as to make disappeear a lot of these inferior beings, etc.,etc.
We will debate you only if you meet the requirements set out by us. What a yellow bellied, chicken (snip), gutless, ( I got a lot worse but would obviously get snipped), way to weasel out of a debate. We would debate you, but you do not seem to be wearing the appropriate foot wear for the debate. Weaker than weak. Lamer than lame.
Barry,
“There are greater than 10 000 scientists working on climate or climate-related science. If you can find 101 of these that disagree with Beddington’s description, you may have something. Maybe.”
Who are these 10,000 scientists? Name them please.
Oh wait – you just made that up.
So, they found that Jones et al were only guilty of bad scientific practice, but that is endemic in Climate Science. UEA/CRU are sloppy and unprofessional, but so is all of Climate Science.
Those who pursue these aims, if not lucky, would probably have to suffer future, unpleasant for them, retributions from the people they so candidly and graciously affected. Our advice, in order not to repeat history, should be:
Just cool it down babies!!…ya know, what goes up must come down…and you threw up too far and away your actions, so beware.
“”” GGM (17:21:19) :
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 ??? “””
GGM, I believe if you review the history, you will find that there were code sections that were vividly described by those who wrote them, as being the tools for fudging the numbers. There might even have been a comment that specifically mentioned the routine that “hid the decline”.
These code sections were apparently commented out, as coding geeks pointed out to us.
But any user wanting to “hide the decline” merely had to remove the semi-colons or whatever the comment delimiters were, to invoke the routine before running the raw dat through the fudge factory; and then replace the semi-colons after getting the results.
And since evidently Jones also lost a lot of the raw data; well they simply didn’t have any desk draw space to put the tape reel, so they “got rid of it to make room”; there is no way to retrace their steps, and prove which operations were performed on which raw data to produce which fudged ouput.
The very existence of those code sections; whether used or not; should be regarded as a breach of “proper procedure”.
Yes it stinks.
OT – Poll of UK Guardian readers shows that they are gullible idiots and most likely to vote liberal: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainability/sustainability-green-survey
Liam (07:55:20) :
So, they found that Jones et al were only guilty of bad scientific practice, but that is endemic in Climate Science
Is there such a “Climate science” or it is just an art?. To be frank it has become (and as such should be considered in any curricula) a branch of political science, under the social/communist chapter.
@Brendan H
I’m curious about diverse views, I’m curious why you see it that way.
I’m also curious why you disagree with apparently most people posting here. I mean, doesn’t that make you curious? Doesn’t it make you curious why most everyone here sees the climate science as pretty unreliable?
How do you explain it?
My weak faith in government is further weakened. I would like to trust officials who hold positions of trust, but it is very hard to square their conclusions with the facts.
I started last night being serious annoyed by this report, but as the day has progressed my whole mood has lightened until right now when I’m really happy with this report.
People are reading it the wrong way!
Imagine if you will, an inquiry into a doctor whose conduct has lead to the death of several patients and it reports: “the doctor didn’t intend to kill the patients and whilst there are a few minor areas that need improvement … no need for real action.”
You can’t imagine it can you! No inquiry into something as serious as the death of a patient would ever take the stance that “the lowest common denominator standards of science apply”. Only some unimportant subject accepts the lowest lowest standard. Something important, something supposedly affect the life and death of millions would clearly require standards far higher than the one-to-one doctor-patient standards.
So, reading between the lines, what the MPs are trying to tell us is that they accept our view on this subject: that this subject is now considered so unimportant in the realms of government that it is best just sweeping the whole episode under the carpet. OK, we can argue the toss about that as an end game, but …
If climate “science” had a future, if it was life & death important, then we would have seen the sparks flying as the MPs did all they could to apply the highest standards appropriate to the importance of the subject
The fact they didn’t bother much with the future standards of climate “science” clearly shows they really don’t think it has a future!