Memorandum submitted by the Institute
of Physics (CRU 39)
THE DISCLOSURE
OF CLIMATE
DATA FROM
THE CLIMATIC
RESEARCH UNIT
AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF
EAST ANGLIA
The Institute of Physics is a scientific charity
devoted to increasing the practice, understanding and application
of physics. It has a worldwide membership of over 36,000 and is
a leading communicator of physics-related science to all audiences,
from specialists through to government and the general public.
Its publishing company, IOP Publishing, is a world leader in scientific
publishing and the electronic dissemination of physics.
The Institute is pleased to submit its views to inform
the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee's inquiry,
"The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research
Unit at the University of East Anglia".
The submission details our response to the questions
listed in the call for evidence, which was prepared with input
from the Institute's Science Board, and its Energy Sub-group.
What are the implications of the disclosures for
the integrity of scientific research?
1. The Institute is concerned that, unless
the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations,
worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research
in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method
as practised in this context.
2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet
provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals
to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of
information law. The principle that scientists should be willing
to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication
by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures
and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed
by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends
well beyond the CRU itself—most of the e-mails were exchanged
with researchers in a number of other international institutions
who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions
on climate change.
3. It is important to recognise that there
are two completely different categories of data set that are involved
in the CRU e-mail exchanges:
— those compiled from direct instrumental
measurements of land and ocean surface temperatures such as the
CRU, GISS and NOAA data sets; and
— historic temperature reconstructions
from measurements of "proxies", for example, tree-rings.
4. The second category relating to proxy
reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century
warming is unprecedented. 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.
5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability
of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way
in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent
suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results
for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental
temperature measurements.
6. There is also reason for concern at the
intolerance to challenge displayed in the e-mails. This impedes
the process of scientific "self correction", which is
vital to the integrity of the scientific process as a whole, and
not just to the research itself. In that context, those CRU e-mails
relating to the peer-review process suggest a need for a review
of its adequacy and objectivity as practised in this field and
its potential vulnerability to bias or manipulation.
7. Fundamentally, we consider it should
be inappropriate for the verification of the integrity of the
scientific process to depend on appeals to Freedom of Information
legislation. Nevertheless, the right to such appeals has been
shown to be necessary. The e-mails illustrate the possibility
of networks of like-minded researchers effectively excluding newcomers.
Requiring data to be electronically accessible to all, at the
time of publication, would remove this possibility.
8. As a step towards restoring confidence
in the scientific process and to provide greater transparency
in future, the editorial boards of scientific journals should
work towards setting down requirements for open electronic data
archiving by authors, to coincide with publication. Expert input
(from journal boards) would be needed to determine the category
of data that would be archived. Much "raw" data requires
calibration and processing through interpretive codes at various
levels.
9. Where the nature of the study precludes
direct replication by experiment, as in the case of time-dependent
field measurements, it is important that the requirements include
access to all the original raw data and its provenance, together
with the criteria used for, and effects of, any subsequent selections,
omissions or adjustments. The details of any statistical procedures,
necessary for the independent testing and replication, should
also be included. In parallel, consideration should be given to
the requirements for minimum disclosure in relation to computer
modelling.
Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent
Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate?
10. The scope of the UEA review is, not
inappropriately, restricted to the allegations of scientific malpractice
and evasion of the Freedom of Information Act at the CRU. However,
most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number
of other leading institutions involved in the formulation of the
IPCC's conclusions on climate change. In so far as those scientists
were complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices, there is
need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific
process in this field.
11. The first of the review's terms of reference
is limited to: "|manipulation or suppression of data which
is at odds with acceptable scientific practice ..." The term
"acceptable" is not defined and might better be replaced
with "objective".
12. The second of the review's terms of
reference should extend beyond reviewing the CRU's policies and
practices to whether these have been breached by individuals,
particularly in respect of other kinds of departure from objective
scientific practice, for example, manipulation of the publication
and peer review system or allowing pre-formed conclusions to override
scientific objectivity.
How independent are the other two international
data sets?
13. Published data sets are compiled from
a range of sources and are subject to processing and adjustments
of various kinds. Differences in judgements and methodologies
used in such processing may result in different final data sets
even if they are based on the same raw data. Apart from any communality
of sources, account must be taken of differences in processing
between the published data sets and any data sets on which they
draw.
February 2010
| 
