The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia - Science and Technology Committee Contents

Memorandum submitted by Stuart Huggett (CRU 03)


  1.1  Underlying the problems at the CRU at UEA is the question of their role in science. To quote from the official CRU website:

  1.2  The aim of the Climatic Research Unit is to improve scientific understanding in three areas:

    — past climate history and its impact on humanity;

    — the course and causes of climate change during the present century; and

    — prospects for the future

  1.3  This implies an impartial and objective scientific approach to understanding the problems of climate.


  2.1  The most worrying aspect of the leaked emails and documents is the way in which debate, peer review and FOI requests were stifled and perverted in an institution which exists to improve scientific understanding of the matter.

  2.2  If this were an obscure and abstract branch of scientific enquiry then the consequences would be insignificant and objective enquiry would gradually supplant bias on the part of the researchers. In this institution, however the results of its research have very far reaching consequences indeed with enormous sums of money involved and major shifts in political and social opinion on a global scale.

  2.3  The manipulation of research in these circumstances appears to be serious fraud—not only on the part of the researchers involved but also on the part of those involved, without due diligence, in directing the course of research at the CRU and those various bodies, institutions and corporations funding, participating in and using the results of that research.

  2.4  Other aspects of the researchers' methodologies revealed in the documents—data manipulation, irregular statistical practices, loss of raw data sets, etc., etc. would appear to be a consequence of their need to bias their research and serves to add substance to the fraud mentioned in 2.03 above.

  2.5  The leaked documents from the CRU energised the global warming debate to the point where politicians and the media started to question the precepts of what has come to be known as 'Climate Change'. As a result further evidence of questionable scientific practices came to light in the IPCC (Himalayan glacier melting, GISS & NOAA temperature manipulation, etc., etc.) and the idea of a 'settled science' or 'consensus' is losing credibility.

  2.6  The beginning of a new and more objective approach to the questions posed for the human race by climate change can now be discerned which will hopefully result in a more rational approach to our stewardship of our planet. For this we have to thank the person or persons, at present unknown, who leaked the CRU documents.


  3.1  The Terms of Reference and Scope of the Independent Review are not adequate in that the review is not asked to examine any possible global financial consequences of the methodologies revealed by the leakage.

January 2010

previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2010
Prepared 31 March 2010