The Mother Of Inquiries: Parliamentary CRU Report

The UK's House of Commons is often called the mother of parliaments. In reality that would be Tynwald, the parliament of the Isle of Man.  However: a cross-party commitee, the House of Commons Science and Technology Commitee, has just published its report on the CRU affair.  The two pdfs, free to download, come to about 2.7Mb of data.

31 March 2010  Eighth Report   HC 387-I 387i.pdf and 387ii.pdf
The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

I call this the mother of reports, not because it is particularly long, but because other inquiries into the so-called 'climategate' affair are currently in progress:
The University of East Anglia has set up The independent Climate Change Email Review.
The UEA has also set up a Scientific Appraisal Panel to review the CRU science.

These inquiries were requested by the UAE: the UAE is not conducting them.

Abbreviations used in the Science and Technology Commitee report:
CRU - Climatic Research Unit
UEA - University of East Anglia
FOIA - Freedom of Information Act
*** - used in place of ... as a more prominent means of showing skipped sections.
... is used to show omitted text within sections.
[...] is in the original pdf file.

The following extracts are quoted verbatim from the pdf files, but with footnote references removed. 

Copyright:
Although I am quoting extensively, I claim fair use under copyright laws since I am seeking to promote wider discussion of the issues and the source document is in any case freely available to the public.  Also, the reports words: "we recommend that the Government reviews the rules for the accessibility of data sets collected and analysed with UK public money." must surely apply to the report itself.

I present the most salient parts of the report here as being more than will be found in most news reports, but much less than the whole document.  I have tried hard to avoid cherry picking.

Please note that the five members named in the formal minutes are the members who proof-read the report.  This should not be taken as proof that only five people compiled the report.

The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit
at the University of East Anglia.

Summary

The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU)at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in November 2009 had the potential to damage the reputation of the climate science and the scientists involved.

We believe that the focus on CRU and Professor Phil Jones, Director of CRU, in particular has largely been misplaced. Whilst we are concerned that the disclosed e-mails suggest a blunt refusal to share scientific data and methodologies with others, we can sympathise with Professor Jones, who must have found it frustrating to handle requests for data that he knew—or perceived—were motivated by a desire simply to undermine his work.

In the context of the sharing of data and methodologies, we consider that Professor Jones's actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. It is not standard practice in climate science to publish the raw data and the computer code in academic papers. However, climate science is a matter of great importance and the quality of the science should be irreproachable. 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). Had both been available, many of the problems at UEA could have been avoided.

We are content that the phrases such as "trick" or "hiding the decline" 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. Likewise the evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers.

In the context of Freedom of Information (FOIA), much of the responsibility should lie with UEA. The disclosed e-mails appear to show a culture of non-disclosure at CRU and instances where information may have been deleted, to avoid disclosure. We found prima facie evidence to suggest that the UEA found ways to support the culture at CRU of resisting disclosure of information to climate change sceptics. The failure of UEA to grasp fully the potential damage to CRU and UEA by the non-disclosure of FOIA requests was regrettable. UEA needs to review its policy towards FOIA and re-assess how it can support academics whose expertise in this area is limited.

The Deputy Information Commissioner has given a clear indication that a breach of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 may have occurred but that a prosecution was time-barred; however no investigation has been carried out. In our view it is unsatisfactory to leave the matter unresolved. We conclude that the matter needs to be resolved conclusively—either by the Independent Climate Change Email Review or by the Information Commissioner.
We accept the independence of the Climate Change E-mail Review and recommend that the Review be open and transparent, taking oral evidence and conducting interviews in public wherever possible.

On 22 March UEA announced the Scientific Appraisal Panel to be chaired by Lord Oxburgh. This Panel should determine whether the work of CRU has been soundly built and it would be premature for us to pre-judge its work.

Introduction

1. On Friday 20 November 2009 it was reported across the world that hackers had targeted a "leading climate research unit" and that e-mails from the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU), one of the world's foremost centres of climate science, had been published in the internet. The story of the substantial file of private e-mails, documents and data that had been leaked helped ignite the global warming debate in the run up to the Copenhagen climate change conference in December 2009. As reported by the press, exchanges on the internet alleged that data had been manipulated or deleted, in order to support evidence on global warming.
***
4. In mid November 2009 it appeared that a server used by CRU had been accessed with 160 MB of data containing more than 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 other documents being copied/ A UEA spokeswoman confirmed that the information was not available on a server that could be easily accessed and could not have been inadvertently released. It is not known exactly when the breach occurred; the RealClimate website, "a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists'," indicated that UEA had been notified of the possible security breach on 17 November. The following was posted anonymously on the climate-sceptic blog, The Air Vent:

November 17, 2009 at 9:57 pm

We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps.

We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it.

From here the debate was "blown wide open" The Guardian ran the story on 20 November with the headline: "Climate sceptics claim leaked e-mails are evidence of collusion among scientists".

5. UEA issued a statement on 20 November: "This information has been obtained and published without our permission and we took immediate action to remove the server in question from operation. We are undertaking a thorough internal investigation and we have involved the police in this inquiry." The e-mails contained technical and routine aspects of climate research, including data analysis and details of scientific conferences. The controversy has focused on a small number of e-mails, particularly those sent to, or written by, climatologist Professor Phil Jones, the Director of CRU.
***

The independent inquiries set up by UEA

9. On 3 December UEA announced that an independent review—the Independent Climate Change Email Review—into the allegations made against CRU would be carried out by Sir Muir Russell.  Professor Acton explained in a letter to us why Sir Muir was chosen to head the review:
Sir Muir is extremely experienced in public life, has an understanding of the conduct of universities and research, and is entirely independent of any association with this University and with the climate change debated.

10. Alongside the Independent Climate Change E-Mails Review, UEA decided on a separate scientific assessment of CRU's key scientific publications; an external reappraisal of the science itself.  The Royal Society agreed to assist UEA in identifying assessors with the requisite experience, standing and independence.  UEA announced on 22 March that Lord Oxburgh FRS would "chair an independent Scientific Assessment Panel to examine important elements of the published science of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia"
***
13. In the light of the gravity of the allegations against CRU, the growing weight of damaging press coverage, on-going concerns about the deletion of data and the serious implications for UK science we decided to hold an inquiry into the disclosure of the data at CRU. On 22 January 2010 we therefore announced the inquiry inviting submissions on Three key issues:

•    What were the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?
•    Were the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on
      3 December 2009 by UEA adequate?
•    How independent were the other two international data sets. ...

14. If there had been more time available before the end of this Parliament we would have preferred to carry out a wider inquiry into the science of global warming itself. In response to enquiries we issued a statement on 1 February making it clear that the inquiry would focus on the terms of reference announced on 22 January and that this was not an inquiry into global warming.

15. We set a deadline of 10 February for the submission of memoranda and we have
received 58 submissions, not including supplementary memoranda. We held one oral evidence session on 1 March, when we took evidence from five panels:
a)   Rt Hon Lord Lawson of Blaby, Chairman, and Dr Benny Peiser, Director,
      Global Warming Policy Foundation;
b)  Richard Thomas CBE, former Information Commissioner;
c)   Professor Edward Acton, Vice-Chancel lor, UFA and Professor Phil (ones, Director of CRU;
d) Sir Muir Russell, Head of the Independent Climate Change E-Mails. Review; and
e)   Professor John Beddington, Government Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Julia Slingo QBE,
Chief Scientist, Met Office, and Professor Bob Watson, Chief Scientist, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
***

Transparency
Raw Data

38. We recognise that some of the e-mails suggest a blunt refusal to share data, even unrestricted data, with others. We acknowledge that Professor Jones must have found it frustrating to handle requests for data that he knew—or perceived—were motivated by a desire simply to seek to undermine his work. But Professor Jones's failure to handle helpfully requests for data in a field as important and controversial as climate science was bound to be viewed with suspicion. He was obviously frustrated by other workers in the field trying to "undermine" his work, but his actions were inevitably counterproductive. Professor Jones told us that the published e-mails represented only "one tenth of I%" of his output, which amounts to one million e-mails, and that we were only seeing the end of a protracted series of e-mail exchanges. We consider that further suspicion could have been allayed by releasing all the e-mails. In addition, we consider that had the available raw data been available online from an early stage, these kinds of unfortunate e-mail exchanges would not have occurred. In our view, CRU should have been more open with its raw data and followed the more open approach of NASA to making data available.

39. We are not in a position to set out any further the extent, if any, to which CRU should have made the data available in the interests of transparency, and we hope that the Independent Climate Change Email Review will reach specific conclusions on this point. However, transparency and accountability are of are(sic) increasing importance to the public, so we recommend that the Government reviews the rules for the accessibility of data sets collected and analysed with UK public money.
***

Methods

45. The conspiracy claims were fuelled by CRUs refusal to share the most detailed aspects of its methodologies, for example, the computer codes for producing global temperature averages. We note that the research passed the peer review process of some highly reputable journals. However, we note that CRU could have been more open at that time in providing the detailed methodological working on its website. We recommend that all publicly funded research groups consider whether they are being as open as they can be, and ought to be, with the details of their methodologies.
***
49. In our call for evidence we asked for submissions on the question of how independent the other international data sets are. We have established to the extent that a limited inquiry of this nature can, that the NCDC/NOAA and GISS/NASA data sets measuring temperature changes on land and at sea have arrived at similar conclusions using similar data to that used by CRU, but using independently devised methodologies. We have further identified that there are two other data sets (University of Alabama and Remote Sensing Systems), using satellite observations that use entirely different data than that used by CRU. These also confirm the findings of the CRU work. We therefore conclude that there is independent verification, through the use of other methodologies and other sources of data, of the results and conclusions of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

50. The fact that all the datasets show broadly the same sort of course of instrumental temperature change since the nineteenth century compared to today was why Professor John Beddington, the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, had the confidence to say that human induced global warming was, in terms of the evidence to support that hypothesis,
"unchallengeable "
I think in terms of datasets, of the way in which data is analysed, there will always be some degree of uncertainty but when you get a series of fundamentally different analyses on the basic data and they come up with similar conclusions, you get a [...] great deal of certainty coming out of it.

51 Even if the data that CRU used were not publicly available—which they mostly are—or the methods not published—which they have been—its published results would still be credible: the results from CRU agree with those drawn from other international data sets; in other words, the analyses have been repeated and the conclusions have been verified.
***
54 It is not standard practice in climate science and many other fields to publish the raw data and the computer code in academic papers. We think that this is problematic because climate science is a matter of global importance and of public interest, and therefore the quality and transparency of the science should be irreproachable. We therefore consider that climate scientists should take steps to make available all the data used to generate their published work, including raw data; and it should also be made clear and referenced where data has been used but, because of commercial or national security reasons is not available. Scientists are also, under Freedom of Information laws and under the rules of normal scientific conduct, entitled to withhold data which is due to be published under the peer-review process.  In addition, scientists should take steps to make available in full their methodological workings, including the computer codes. Data and methodological workings should be provided via the internet. There should be enough information published to allow verification.
***

"Trick"

59. These interpretations of the colloquial meaning of "trick" have been accepted by even the staunchest of critics:

Lord Lawson of Blaby: The sinister thing is not the word 'trick'. In their [UEA's] own evidence they say that what they mean by 'trick' is the best way of doing something.

Chairman: You accept that?

LordLawson of Blaby: I accept that."

60 Critics of CRU have suggested that Professor Jones's use of the word "trick" is evidence that he was part of a conspiracy to hide evidence that did not fit his view that recent global warming is predominately caused by human activity. "Ihe balance of evidence patently fails to support this view. It appears to be a colloquialism for a "neat" method of handling data.
***

"Hide the decline"

66. Critics of CRU have suggested that Professor Jones's use of the words "hide the decline" is evidence that he was part of a conspiracy to hide evidence that did not fit his view that recent global warming is predominantly caused by human activity. That he has published papers—including a paper in Nature—dealing with this aspect of the science clearly refutes this allegation. In our view, it was shorthand for the practice of discarding data known to be erroneous. We expect that this is a matter the Scientific Appraisal Panel will address.
***

Perverting the peer review process

73. The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers. The Independent Climate Change Email Review should look in detail at all of these claims.
***

Correspondence with the Deputy Information Commissioner

***
93. It seems to us that both sides have a point There is prima facie evidence that CRU has breached the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It would, however, be premature, without a thorough investigation affording each party the opportunity to make representations, to conclude that UEA was in breach of the Act. In our view, it is unsatisfactory to leave the matter unresolved simply because of the operation of the six-month time limit on the initiation of prosecutions. Much of the reputation of CRU hangs on the issue. We conclude that the matter needs to be resolved conclusively— either by the Independent Climate Change Email Review or by the Information Commissioner.
***

Volume of requests

103. Whether or not CRU liked it, those making FOIA requesls were entitled to have their requests dealt with in accordance with the legislation and, if the information sought did not fall within one of the exclusions provided by the FOIA, it should have been disclosed. We have already recommended in paragraph 54 above that in future information, including data and methodology, should be published proactively on the internet wherever possible. However, a culture of withholding information—from those perceived by CRU to be hostile to global warming—appears to have pervaded CRU's approach to FOIA requests from the outset. We consider this to be unacceptable.

104. In the face of such an unhelpful approach we are not surprised that FOIA requests multiplied. When the surge in FOIA requests hit CRU in July 2009 UEA provided extra resources but because of their technical nature the same small group of staff at CRU had a pivotal role in handling the requests. We are not clear that the culture changed. We cannot reach a firm conclusion on the basis of the evidence we took but we must put on record our concern about the manner in which UEA allowed CRU to handle FDIA requests. Further, we found prima facie evidence to suggest that the UEA found ways to support the culture at CRU of resisting disclosure of information to climate change sceptics. The failure of UEA to grasp fully the potential damage to CRU and UEA by the nondisclosure of FOIA requests was regrettable. UEA needs to review its policy towards FOIA and re-assess how it can support academics whose expertise in this area is limited.

Independent inquiries

105. There are two reviews underway: the Independent Climate Change Email Review led by Sir Muir Russell; and a scientific assessment panel reviewing CRUs key scientific publications. The Vice-Chancellor explained to us in oral evidence on 1 March 2010 that the reviews would focus on different matters:

Muir Russel's independent review is not looking at the science, it is looking at allegations about malpractise. ...

106. The Independent Climate Change Email Review is being conducted by a team, led by Sir Muir Russell According to the Review's website the team has more than 100 years' collective expertise of scientific research methodology and a wide range of scientific backgrounds. None have any links to the Climatic Research Unit, or the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
***
113. We accept the assurances that Sir Muir Russell has given about the independence of the Independent Climate Change Email Review and we expect him to be scrupulous in preserving its impartiality. We see no reason why the Review's conclusions and UEA's response have to be published together. Indeed, it could give the impression that UEA was being given an advantage when it comes to responding. We consider that the Review's conclusions and recommendations should not be conveyed to UEA in advance of publication.

114. With regards to the terms of reference of the Review, we consider that as well as measuring CRU against current acceptable scientific practice, the Review should also make recommendations on best practice to be followed by CRU in the future. We invite Sir Muir Russell to respond formally to our Report to the extent that he sets out whether, on the basis of its contents, he finds the Terms of Reference of his inquiry need to be changed.
***
119. It is unfortunate that the Independent Review got off to a bad start with the necessary resignation of Dr Campbell. The question of the operation of peer review is going to be a critical issue in the inquiry and the Review Team needs to take steps to ensure the insight and experience he would have brought are replaced.
***
122. We agree that the Review must be open and transparent. We conclude that, when the Independent Review holds oral hearings, or interviews, they should be carried out in public wherever possible and that it should publish all the written evidence it receives on its web site as soon as possible.
***

Scientific Appraisal Panel

123. In its evidence to us the Independent Climate Change Email Review stated that its remit does not invite it to re-appraise the scientific work of CRU. That re-appraisal is being separately commissioned by UEA, with the assistance of the Royal Society." In a statement released on 11 February UEA said that:

The Royal Society will assist the University in identifying assessors with the requisite expertise, standing and independence. "Published papers from CRU have gone through the rigorous and intensive peer review process which is the keystone for maintaining the integrity of scientific research," said Professor Trevor Davies, the University's Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research, Enterprise and Engagement. "That process and the findings of our researchers have been the subject of significant debate in recent months. Colleagues, in CRU have strenuously defended their conduct and the published work and we believe it is in the interests of all concerned that there should be an additional assessment considering the science itself."

The independent reassessment will complement Sir Muir Russell's Review of the key allegations about the handling of data arising from the publication of a series of e-mails hacked from CRU. Sir Muir's Review is expected to announce its finding in Spring 2010.

The reassessment of CRU's key publications will be completed at the earliest date the assessors can manage. The findings will be made public.
***

Public view of the climate science

126. There is no doubt that the e-mail disclosure from CRU in November 2009, and especially the extensive media coverage that has followed it ever since, has affected the general public view of climate science, both in the UK and further afield. Professor Bob Watson, Defra's Chief Scientific Adviser, told us that "the media has certainly portrayed the UEA issue as a crisis, so I think to the public it has been portrayed as a crisis".  Professor Peter Cox, a climate scientist and a lead-author on the last IPCC  Working Group, in his written submission to us, said as much: "I am concerned that public confidence in the science of climate change has been undermined by the email leak1'.  In its submission the Royal Society of Chemistry said that the true nature of science dictates that research is transparent and robust enough to survive scrutiny. A lack of willingness to disseminate scientific information may infer that the scientific results or methods used are not robust enough to face scrutiny, even if this conjecture is not well-founded. This has far-reaching consequences for the reputation of science as a whole, with the ability to undermine the public's confidence in science.

127. The majority of submissions submitted to our inquiry has been from those who stated that the disclosed e-mails confirmed their worries that the climate change orthodoxy has serious flaws and the actions of CRU seriously impugned the integrity of climate change research.  A representative example was the memorandum from Dr Phillip Bratby, "a semi-retired energy consultant", who said that having examined the disclosures:

It is concluded that over at least a period of 20 years, climate science has been seriously compromised by the actions of a small group of scientists who have attempted to control the debate about climate change. The effects of this are potentially profound. For example a generation of work may have been corrupted and maybe unreliable. A generation of students may have been corrupted and their work maybe unreliable.

128. Others offered a different perspective. Dr Timothy Osborn, a full-time member of staff at CRU, defended CRU:

It is impossible to draw firm conclusions from the hacked documents and emails. Tbey do not represent the complete record, and they are not a random selection from the complete record. They are clearly selected with a purpose in mind and it is easy for people to fall into the traps set by those who did the selection.
***
131 In our view, reputation has to be built on the solid foundation of excellent, peer-reviewed science. The review of the science to be carried out by the Scientific Appraisal Panel, which UEA announced on 22 March, should determine whether the work of CRU has been soundly built and it would be premature for us to pre-judge that review.

132. Reputation does not, however, rest solely on the quality of work as it should. It also depends on perception. It is self-evident that the disclosure of CRU e-mails has damaged the reputation of UK climate science and, as views on global warming have become polarised, any deviation from the highest scientific standards will be pounced on. As we explained in chapter 2, the practices and methods of climate science are a key issue. If the practices of CRU are found to be in line with the rest of climate science, the question would arise whether climate science methods of operation need to change. In this event we would recommend that the scientific communitv should consider changing those practices to ensure greater transparency.
***

Conclusions

135. Consideration of the complaints and accusations made against CRU has led us to three broad conclusions.

136. Conclusion 1 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, we consider that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. We have suggested that the community consider becoming more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies. On accusations relating to Freedom of Information, we consider that much of the responsibility should lie with UEA, not CRU.

137. Conclusion 2 In addition, insofar as we have been able to consider accusations of dishonesty—for example, Professor Jones's alleged attempt to "hide the decline"— we consider that there is no case to answer. Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, that "global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity".  It was not our purpose to examine, nor did we seek evidence on, the science produced by CRU. It will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel to look in detail into all the evidence to determine whether or not the consensus view remains valid.

138. Conclusion 3 A great responsibility rests on the shoulders of climate science: to provide the planet's decision makers with the knowledge they need to secure our future. The challenge that this poses is extensive and some of these decisions risk our standard of living. When the prices to pay are so large, the knowledge on which these kinds of decisions are taken had better be right. The science must be irreproachable.
***

Conclusions and recommendations

Datasets

3       We note that the research passed the peer review process of some highly reputable journals. However, we note that CRU could have been more open at that lime in providing the detailed methodological working on its website. We recommend that all publicly funded research groups consider whether they are being as open as they can be, and ought to be, with the details of their methodologies. (Paragraph 45)

4.       We therefore conclude that there is independent verification, through the use of other methodologies and other sources of data, of the results and conclusions of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. (Paragraph 49)

5.       Even if the data that CRU used were not publicly available—which they mostly are— or the methods not published—which they have been—its published results would still be credible: the results from CRU agree with those drawn from other international data sets; in other words, the analyses have been repeated and the conclusions have been verified. (Paragraph 51)
***
7.       Critics af CRU have suggested that Professor Jones's use of the word "trick" is evidence that he was part of a conspiracy to hide evidence that did not fit his view that recent global warming is predominately caused by human activity. The balance of evidence patently fails to support this view. It appears to be a colloquialism for a "neat" method of handling data. (Paragraph 60)

8.       Critics of CRU have suggested that Professor Jones's use of the words "hide the decline" is evidence that he was part of a conspiracy to hide evidence that did not fit his view that recent global warming is predominantly caused by human activity. That he has published papers—including a paper in Nature—dealing with this aspect of the science clearly refutes this allegation. In our view, it was shorthand for the practice of discarding data known to be erroneous. We expect that this is a matter the Scientific Appraisal Panel will address. (Paragraph 66)

9.       The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers. The Independent Climate Change Email Review should look in detail at all of these claims. (Paragraph 73)
***

Conclusions

22.     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, we consider that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. We have suggested that the community consider becoming more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies. On accusations relating to Freedom of Information, we consider that much of the responsibility should lie with UEA, not CRU. (Paragraph 136)
***

24.     A great responsibility rests on the shoulders of climate science: to provide the planet's decision makers with the knowledge they need to secure our future. The challenge that this poses is extensive and some of these decisions risk our standard of living. When the prices to pay are so large, the knowledge on which these kinds of decisions are taken had better be right The science must be irreproachable. (Paragraph 138)

end of quoted report.

Edit: the 2nd pdf - 387ii.pdf - contains written evidence and the transcript of oral evidence.

--------------
Comments:

I have tried to extract sufficient text for the purpose of showing what was investigated and what the main findings were.

I hope that my proof-reading of my own typing has been up to the task.  If any errors of transcription remain, please indicate the error and paragraph.  Thanks.