18. Climate is distinct from weather:
it is the average of weather conditions over a number of years.
Climatologists study climates in different parts of the world
and for the Earth as a whole. CRU, according to its website: "has
developed a number of the data sets widely used in climate research,
including the global temperature record used to monitor the state
of the climate system, as well as statistical software packages
and climate models".
19. The process of calculating the Earth's average
global temperatures (past, present and future) is complicated
and lengthy. Data from thousands of weather stations all around
the world, on land and at sea, must be collected, checked for
quality, adjusted for inconsistencies and error margins, and then
mapped onto a series of grids on the Earth's surface. The methods,
results and conclusions are then presented to the academic world,
first by passing the peer review process prior to publication,
and second, after presentation, the scrutiny of the wider academic
20. Climate science, like any other science, uses
the scientific method to make its assessments of past and present
climate and predictions about the future climate. The key characteristics
of the scientific method can be described as: characterisations,
hypotheses, predictions, and experiments.
consideration of a problem, and examination of whether or not
an explanation exists for it.
if no such explanation exists, a new explanation is stated.
what consequences follow from a new explanation?
is the outcome consistent with the predicted consequences?
Each of these is subject to peer review prior to
the formal sharing of knowledge through publication. Through peer
review scientists allow their views and methods to be critically
appraised expertly and externally.
To have the results and conclusions survive criticism
or scepticism and be part of the accepted canon of scientific
knowledge, most experiments will have to be demonstrably replicable
(by the same group) to pass peer review and will often need to
be verified by other independent researchers taking similar approaches.
21. Therefore climatologists are, like other scientists,
required to test their theoriessuch as global warming and
the causes of warmingagainst observational data. They must
also replicate and verify their experiments, by holding independent
datasets and conducting independent analyses of these datasets,
and by publishing their full methods and results for scrutiny.
Ultimately, these ideas are put up to the threat of falsification
by other scientists working in the field.
22. In this Chapter we discuss some aspects of this
23. There are three main international climate datasets,
which have been built up from direct temperature measurements
on land and sea at weather stations all around the world:
a) the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) of
the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
in Asheville, North Carolina, USA;
b) the Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS),
part of the National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA)
in New York, USA; and
c) CRUTEM3, at CRU, UEA.
24. In addition, there are two others, one in Russia
and one in Japan, that use similar methods.
There are also two that use satellite observations, by the University
of Alabama at Huntsville and by Remote Sensing Systems, California.
25. Professor Jones, commenting on the different
climate research groups around the world in the UK, US, Russia
and Japan, told us
we 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.
26. What sets the CRU dataset apart is its comprehensiveness:
The CRU dataset, which forms the land surface
component of the HadCRUT global temperature record, was compiled
with the aim of comprehensiveness. The majority of the data in
it are derived from the same freely-available raw data sets used
by NOAA and NASA. However, it also includes data derived from
station data that were obtained directly from countries, institutions
and scientists on the understanding that they would not be passed
Complaints and accusations
27. The complaints and accusations made against CRU
in relation to the scientific process come under two broad headings.
The first is transparency: that CRU failed to abide by best scientific
practice by refusing to share its raw data and detailed methods.
The second is honesty: that CRU has deliberately misrepresented
the data, in order to produce results that fit its preconceived
views about the anthropogenic warming of the climate. We take
each of these complaints and accusations in turn.
28. Warwick Hughes, a "freelance earth scientist
had asked Professor Jones for CRU's raw data. He received the
I should warn you that some data we have we are
not supposed [to] pass on to others. We can pass on the gridded
datawhich we do. Even if WMO [World Meteorological Organization]
agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years
invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to
you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.
29. On the face of it, this looks like an unreasonable
response to a reasonable request. As Lord Lawson put it: "Ask
any decent scientist and they will say the keystone for integrity
in scientific research is full and transparent disclosure of data
However, Professor Jones, while confessing that he has sent some
defended his position.
30. First, in answer to the question of whether the
raw data are accessible and verifiable, Professor Jones told us
The simple answer is yes, most of the same basic
data are available in the United States in something called the
Global Historical Climatology Network. They have been downloadable
there for a number of years so people have been able to take the
data, do whatever method of assessment of the quality of the data
and derive their own gridded product and compare that with other
31. In addition, of course, there are the sources
of the data, the weather stations, to which any individual is
free to go and collect the data in the same way that CRU did.
This is feasible because the list of stations that CRU used was
published in 2008.
32. Even if CRU had wanted to, it would have been
unable to publish all of these data because, as Professor Acton
explained, some of the data are bound by commercial agreements
with different national meteorological organisations:
Unfortunately, several of these countries impose
conditions and say you are not allowed to pass [on the data].
Seven countries have said "No, you cannot", half the
countries have not yet answered, Canada and Poland are amongst
those who have said, "No you cannot publish it" and
also Sweden. Russia is very hesitant. We are under a commercial
promise, as it were, not to; we are longing to publish it because
what science needs is the most openness.
(The issue with Sweden has since been resolved. The
Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute gave permission
for CRU to publish its Swedish data on the UEA website on 8 March
33. Second, as UEA explained in its submission, it
sometimes necessary to adjust temperature data
because changes in station location, instrument or observation
time, or in the methods used to calculate monthly average temperatures
can introduce false trends. These have to be removed or adjusted,
or else the overall series of values will be incorrect. In the
early 1980s, CRU painstakingly examined the long-term homogeneity
of each station temperature series which it acquired. As a result,
data were adjusted for about 11% of the sites, that is approximately
314 sites out of a then-total of some 3,276. This was in complete
accordance with standard practice, and all adjustments were documented.
34. Professor Jones added, when he gave oral evidence:
It is all documented [...] what [adjustments
we made to the data] in the 1980s and since then we have obviously
added more station data as more has become available, as countries
have digitised more data; we have added that in and we have reported
on that in our peer review publications in 2003 and 2006.
35. These kinds of adjustments to raw data take a
lot of time. That is why, in the words of Professor Jones, "Most
scientists do not want to deal with the raw station data, they
would rather deal with a derived product".
36. A third point was made by Professor Acton that
CRU should not be under any obligation to provide raw data:
May I also point out that it is not a national
archive, it is not a library, it is a research unit. It has no
special duty to conserve and its data is the copy of data provided
by over 150 countries, whose national meteorological stations
turn the data into the average for a month.
37. CRU's refusal to release the raw data gave some
the impression that it was deliberately keeping its work private
so that its studies could not "be replicated and critiqued".
The Peabody Energy Company said of CRU that "they appeared
to be particularly concerned that putting their information in
the public domain would expose their work to criticism".
Even an effort to conduct a simple quality check was said to be
thwarted by CRU's unwillingness to share the data it had used.
In contrast, NASA has been able to make all its raw data available
as well as its programmes.
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 knewor perceivedwere
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 1%" 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
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.
40. The Royal Society of Chemistry in its submission
made it clear that:
It is essential that the public and all non-specialists
remain truly confident in the scientific method to provide a sound
scientific evidence-base on which strong decisions can be made.
There have been criticisms that Professor Jones and
colleagues have not shared their methodologies. Andrew Montford,
author of The Hockey Stick Illusion,
pointed out in his memorandum that:
The scientific method demands that findings be
subject to testing and verification by others. The refusal of
CRU scientists to release information to those who they felt might
question or threaten their findings have led many to conclude
that the CRU's work is not trustworthy.
41. Professor Jones contested these claims. According
to him, "The methods are published in the scientific papers;
they are relatively simple and there is nothing that is rocket
science in them".
He also noted: "We have made all the adjustments we have
made to the data available in these reports;
they are 25 years old now".
He added that the programme that produced the global temperature
average had been available from the Met Office since December
42. On this basis, he argued, it was unnecessary
to provide the exact codes that he used to produce the CRUTEM3
chart. The Met Office had released its code and it produced exactly
the same result.
43. In answer to the charge that the computer codes
that were stolen from CRU's computer network were defective,
Professor Jones pointed out that:
Those codes are from a much earlier time, they
are from the period about 2000 to 2004. [They] do not relate to
the production of the global and hemispheric temperature series.
They are nothing to do with that, they are to do with a different
project [...] that was funded by the British Atmospheric Data
Centre, which is run by NERC, and that was to produce more gridded
temperature data and precipitation data and other variables. A
lot of that has been released on a Dutch website and also the
44. CRU's alleged refusal to disclose its assumptions
and methodologies gave credence to the view that exposure to "independent
scrutiny would have undermined the AGW [anthropogenic global warming]
However, the failure to publish the computer code for CRUTEM3
left CRU vulnerable when concerns emerged that other codes it
used had faults. John Graham-Cumming, a professional computer
programmer, told us that:
the organization writing the [other] code did
not adhere to standards one might find in professional software
engineering. The code had easily identified bugs, no visible test
mechanism, was not apparently under version control and was poorly
documented. It would not be surprising to find that other code
written at the same organization was of similar quality. And given
that I subsequently found a bug in the actual CRUTEM3 code only
reinforces my opinion.
45. The conspiracy claims were fuelled by CRU's 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.
Repeatability and verification
46. These complaints and concerns surrounding transparency
cut to the heart of the scientific process. It has been argued
that without access to the raw data and detailed methodology it
is not possible to check the results of CRU's work. The Institute
of Physics pointed out that:
Published reconstructions may represent only
a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices
made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions
or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This
possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected)
requests for further information.
47. This has substance if one considers CRU's work
in isolation. But science is more than individual researchers
or research groups. One should put research in context and ask
the question: what would one hope to find by double checking the
processing of the raw data? If this were the only dataset in existence,
and Professor Jones's team had been the only team in the world
to analyse it, then it might make sense to double check independently
the processing of the raw data and the methods. But there are
other datasets and other analyses that have been carried out as
Professor Jones explained:
There are two groups in America that we [CRU]
compare with and there are also two additional groups, one in
Russia and one in Japan, that also produce similar records to
ourselves and they all show pretty much the same sort of course
of instrumental temperature change since the nineteenth century
compared to today.
[...] we 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.
48. In its memorandum UEA explained the differences
between the methodologies used by three basic datasets for land
areas of the world, NOAA, NASA and CRU/UEA:
All these datasets rely on primary observations
recorded by NMSs [National Meteorological Services] across the
each use at least 7,200 stations. CRUTEM3 uses fewer. In CRUTEM3,
each monthly temperature value is expressed as a departure from
the average for the base period 1961-90. This "anomaly method"
of expressing temperature records demands an adequate amount of
data for the base period; this limitation reduces the number of
stations used by CRUTEM3 to 4,348 (from the dataset total of 5,121).
The latest NCDC analysis [...] has now moved to the "anomaly
method" though with different refinements from those of CRU.
NCDC and GISS use different approaches to the
problem of "absolute temperature" from those of CRUTEM3.
The homogeneity procedures undertaken by GISS and NCDC are completely
different from those adopted for CRUTEM3. NCDC has an automated
adjustment procedure [...], whilst GISS additionally makes allowances
for urbanization effects at some stations.
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
availablewhich they mostly areor the methods not
publishedwhich they have beenits 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.
52. That is probably part of why it has not been
practice in the climate science community to publish all the data
and computer codes with the academic papers. We got to the crux
of the issue during an interesting exchange with Professor Jones:
Graham Stringer: You are saying that every
paper that you have produced, the computer programmes, the weather
stations, all the information, the codes, have been available
to scientists so that they could test out how good your work was.
Is that the case on all the papers you have produced?
Professor Jones: That is not the
Graham Stringer: Why is it not?
Professor Jones: Because it has
not been standard practice to do that.
Graham Stringer: That takes me back to
the original point, that if it is not standard practice how can
the science progress?
Professor Jones: Maybe it should
be standard practice but it is not standard practice across the
53. Another reason why data and the codes were not
published may be that norms for publication evolved in a period
when the journals were only published in hard copy. In such circumstances
it is understandable why an editor would not want to publish raw
climate data (extremely long lists of numbers) and code for the
computer programmes that analyse the data (which run to hundreds
of thousands of lines of code). However, in the age of the internet,
these kinds of products can be made available more easily, and
we are minded to agree with Professor Jones observation on this
point that: "Maybe it should be standard practice".
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
55. Of all the e-mails released, one dated 16 November
1999 has caused particular concern:
I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding
in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from
1981 onwards) amd [sic] from 1961 for Keith's to hide the
56. The word "trick" and the phrase "hide
the decline" have been taken by some to demonstrate intent
on the part of Professor Jones to "falsify data" and
to "exaggerate warming".
57. In his submission, Peter Taylor, author of Chill,
The tree ring data did not match the model expectation
(ie the 'hockey stick' pattern of a sudden rise at the end of
the period). Rather than admit this, the team-workers discuss
using Michael Mann's 'trick' of replacing the offending tree-ring
data and using instrumental data in its place in a spliced graph.
58. UEA interpreted the use of the word "trick"
as for the (now notorious) word 'trick', so deeply
appealing to the media, this has been richly misinterpreted and
quoted out of context. It was used in an informal email, discussing
the difficulties of statistical presentation. It does not mean
a 'ruse' or method of deception. In context it is obvious that
it is used in the informal sense of 'the best way of doing something'.
In this case it was 'the trick or knack' of constructing a statistical
illustration which would combine the most reliable proxy and instrumental
evidence of temperature trends.
59. These interpretations of the colloquial meaning
of "trick" have been accepted by even the staunchest
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?
Lord Lawson of Blaby: I accept
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. The 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"
61. Lord Lawson did, however, describe CRU's treatment
of the data as "reprehensible",
because, in his view, Professor Jones deliberately hid data that
demonstrated a decline in temperatures.
62. The data that he believed to be "hidden"
are a set of tree ring data that disagree with other data sources
regarding temperature trends. Lord Lawson said: "when the
proxy series [...] departed from the measured temperature series,
a normal person will say maybe that means the proxy series is
not all that reliable".
In that context he made two specific claims:
the tree ring data were flawed because "for a long period
before 1421 they relied on one single pine tree";
· that the divergence
problem was not just for data after the 1960s, "it is not
a good fit in the latter half of the nineteenth century either".
63. It is outside the remit of the terms of reference
of this inquiry to make a detailed assessment of the science,
but it is worth noting that Professor Jones had a very different
perspective. On the first point, he commented:
That particular reconstruction went back to 1400,
or just after 1400, and that is because there are insufficient
trees to go back before that, there are more than just one. We
have criteria to determine how far you can go back in terms of
the number of trees you have at a certain number of sites.
64. On the second point, he told us:
One of the curves was based on tree ring data
which showed a very good relationship between the tree rings and
the temperature from the latter part of the nineteenth century
through to 1960, and after that there was a divergence where the
trees did not go up as much as the real temperatures had.
65. Professor Jones has published on this issue on
several occasions, including a 1998 Nature paper
and subsequent papers.
He contested the view that he was trying to hide the decline in
the sense that he was trying to pretend that these data did not
exist and thereby exaggerate global warming: "We do not accept
it was hidden because it was discussed in a paper[]
the year before and we have discussed it in every paper we have
written on tree rings and climate".
Rather, what was meant by "hide the decline" was remove
the effects of data known to be problematic in the sense that
the data were known to be misleading. UEA made it clear in its
written submission that:
CRU never sought to disguise this specific type
of tree-ring "decline or divergence". On the contrary,
CRU has published a number of pioneering articles that illustrate,
suggest reasons for, and discuss the implications of this interesting
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 papersincluding
a paper in Naturedealing 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
PERVERTING THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS
67. The main allegations on the suppression or distortion
of others' findings concern the role of CRU in the operation of
the peer review process. It has been alleged that scientists at
CRU abused the peer review process to prevent those with dissenting
views on climate change the opportunity in getting papers published.
There are three key accusations. First, David Holland, an author
of several FOIA requests that were mentioned in the leaked e-mails,
claimed that climate scientists at CRU corrupted the IPCC process:
The emails show that a group of influential climate
scientists colluded to subvert the peer-review process of the
IPCC and science journals, and thereby delay or prevent the publication
and assessment of research by scientists who disagreed with the
group's conclusions about global warming. They manufactured pre-determined
conclusions through the corruption of the IPCC process and deleted
procedural and other information hoping to avoid its disclosure
under freedom-of-information requests.
68. In one e-mail, Professor Jones appeared to suggest
that he and another scientist would deliberately try to "keep
out" two papers from the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report.
69. The second is that climate scientists tried to
suppress a paper on research fraud. As Dr Benny Peiser, Director
of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, put it:
The CRU e-mails under investigation suggest that
climate scientists (not only at CRU but also elsewhere) have actively
sought to prevent a paper on alleged research fraud from being
published in violation of principles of academic integrity.
70. The third allegation is made by Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen,
a former peer reviewer for the IPCC, editor of the journal, Energy
& Environment, and Reader Emeritus at Hull University,
who stated in her memorandum that her journal became the focus
of attacks from CRU scientists:
As editor of a journal which remained open to
scientists who challenged the orthodoxy, I became the target of
a number of CRU manoeuvres. The hacked emails revealed attempts
to manipulate peer review to E&E's disadvantage, and showed
that libel threats were considered against its editorial team.
Dr Jones even tried to put pressure on my university department.
The emailers expressed anger over my publication of several papers
that questioned the 'hockey stick' graph and the reliability of
CRU temperature data. The desire to control the peer review process
in their favour is expressed several times. [...] CRU clearly
disliked my journal and believed that "good" climate
scientists do not read it.
71. When we asked Professor Jones about these accusations,
he contested each of them.
the claim that he tried to keep two papers out of the IPCC report,
he explained that the papers were already published and that "I
was just commenting that I did not think those papers were very
· On the claim
by he tried to suppress papers that alleged research fraud, he
Dr Benny Peiser [...] was editing a series of
papers in Energy & Environment. He asked me to comment
on a particular paper and I sent him some views back that I did
not think the paper was very good. It was not a formal review,
he was just asking me for my views.
the claims made by Dr Boehmer-Christiansen, he noted: "I
was sending an email to the head of department about a complaint
that she had made about me to the UK Climate Impacts Programme,
so I was just responding there".
72. In summary, Professor Jones argued:
I do not think there is anything in those emails
that really supports any view that I or CRU have been trying to
pervert the peer review process in any way. I have just been giving
my views on specific papers.
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.
31 www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about Back
Ev 21, para 4.2 Back
Q 78 Back
Ev 104 [D.R. Keiller], para 2 Back
Q 79 Back
Q 80 Back
Ev 64 [John Beddington and Julia Slingo] Back
Ev 158, Appendix 1 Back
Q 9 Back
Q 103 Back
Q 78 Back
Q 98 Back
Q 94 Back
Ev 39, para B Back
Ev 18, para 3.4 Back
Q 81 Back
Q 107 Back
Q 92 Back
Ev 194 [Peabody Energy Company], para 20 Back
As above Back
Ev 152 [Steven Mosher], para 8 Back
Q 150 [Professor Jones] Back
Ev 170, summary Back
Andrew Montford, The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and
the corruption of science, Stacey International, 2010 Back
Ev 159, para 4 Back
Q 92 Back
Raymond Bradley, Mick Kelly, Phil Jones and others, A Climatic
Data Bank for Northern Hemisphere Land Areas, 1851-1980, US
DoE, Technical Report TRO17, 1985, p 335; Phil Jones, Sarah Raper,
Ben Santer, and others, A Grid Point Surface Air Temperature
Data Set for the Northern Hemisphere, DoE Technical Report
No. TR022, US Department of Energy, 1985, p 251; Phil Jones, Sarah
Raper, Claire Goodess, and others, A Grid Point Surface Air
Temperature Data Set for the Southern Hemisphere, 1851-1984,
DoE Technical Report No. TR027, US Department of Energy, 1986,
Q 97 Back
As above Back
Qq 139-42 Back
Ev 32, Q 137; Ev 196 [John Graham-Cumming] Back
Qq 137-38 Back
Ev 94 [Clive Menzies], para 1.5 Back
Ev 196 Back
Ev 167, para 4 Back
Q 78 Back
Q 80 Back
Ev 21, para 4.3 Back
Dataset held by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS,
USA) part of the National Aeronautic and Space Administration
Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) dataset held by National
Climatic Data Center (NCDC), the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA, USA) Back
Ev 21, para 4.4 Back
Ev 21, para 4.5 Back
Q 191 Back
Qq 191-92 Back
Qq 100-02 Back
Q 102 Back
See paragraph 78 and following; section 22 of the FOIA provides
an exemption from disclosure where the requested information is
intended for future (but imminent) publication. Back
E-mail from Phil Jones to Ray Bradley, 16 November 1999 Back
Ev 93 [Godfrey Bloom MEP], para 4 Back
Peter Taylor, Chill, A Reassessment of Global Warming Theory:
Does Climate Change Mean the World is Cooling, and If So What
Should We Do About It?, Clairview Books, 2009 Back
Ev 188, para 22 Back
Ev 19, para 3.5.6 Back
Qq 25-26 Back
Q 26 Back
Qq 26-28 Back
Q 26 Back
As above Back
Q 28 Back
Q 125 Back
Q 122 Back
Q 122; Keith Briffa and others, "Reduced sensitivity of recent
tree-growth to temperature at high northern latitudes", Nature,
vol 391 (1998), pp 678-82 Back
For example: Edward Cook, Paul Krusic and Phil Jones, "Dendroclimatic
signals in long tree-ring chronologies from the Himalayas of Nepal",
International Journal of Climatology, Vol 23 (2003), pp
Keith Briffa and others, "Trees tell of past climates: but
are they speaking less clearly today?", Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological
Sciences, vol 353 (1998), pp 65-73 Back
Q 124 Back
Ev 19, para 3.5.5 Back
Ev 115, para 2 Back
Ev 164, para 2 Back
Ev 125, paras 4.1-4.3 Back
Q 154 Back
Q 157 Back
As above Back
Q 159 Back