5 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".[184]
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.
184 Q 191 Back
| 
