Conclusions and recommendations
Datasets
1. 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 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. (Paragraph 38)
2. 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. (Paragraph 39)
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 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. (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)
6. 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. (Paragraph 54)
7. 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. (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)
Freedom of Information issues
10. We
regret that the ICO made a statement to the press that went beyond
that which it could substantiate and that it took over a month
for the ICO properly to put the record straight. We recommend
that the ICO develop procedures to ensure that its public comments
are checked and that mechanisms exist to swiftly correct any mis-statements
or misinterpretations of such statements. (Paragraph 91)
11. 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. (Paragraph 93)
12. If the Minister
was correct to assert in July 2009 that the Government had no
evidence that the current six-month time limit presents a systemic
problem, then it is now clear that such evidence exists. Irrespective
of whether or not CRU breached the Freedom of Information Act
2000, we recommend that the Government review the operation of
section 77 of the 2000 Act and the six month limit on the initiation
of prosecutions provided by section 127(1) of the Magistrates
Court Act 1980. (Paragraph 95)
13. 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.
(Paragraph 103)
14. 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 FOIA 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 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.
(Paragraph 104)
The Independent Climate Change Email Review
15. 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. (Paragraph
113)
16. 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. (Paragraph 114)
17. 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. (Paragraph 119)
18. 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
website as soon as possible. (Paragraph 122)
The Scientific Appraisal Panel
19. 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. (Paragraph 131)
20. 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 the 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 community should consider
changing those practices to ensure greater transparency. (Paragraph
132)
The two inquiries
21. The
two reviews or inquiries need to map their activities to ensure
that there are no unmanaged overlaps or gaps. If there are, the
whole process could be undermined. (Paragraph 134)
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)
23. 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. (Paragraph 137)
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)
| 
