Memorandum submitted by Susan Ewens (CRU 13)
1. I was on-line on the night of Thursday 19th November when the
"Climategate" story broke on the internet and I immediately downloaded the CRU
emails and files. Contrary to the immediate excuse given by apologists
that the CRU emails were "taken out of context", it was immediately clear to
those who had been following the dispute with the CRU over climate data
disclosure and interpretation that long held suspicions were being confirmed in
a fascinating way.
2. Within days I had written to my MP, Hilary Benn, the MP for Norwich
South, Chas Clarke and the Vice Chancellor of UEA, Sir Edward Acton, to protest
about the moral and scientific ethics displayed by the CRU staff in their
communications and their political advocacy of debatable "findings". Now
I am writing to you. There is little else an ordinary but concerned and
informed citizen can do to influence events except stand up and be counted.
3. I feel strongly about this matter. I am a woman of 62 with a BSc
in Sociology from the LSE. I am capable of understanding and interpreting
data from of statistical tables and graphs, etc. Until I saw the Channel4
film "The Great Global Warming Swindle" in March 2007 I went along, largely in
ignorance, let it be said, with the climate "orthodoxy". This was
mainly because I trusted the BBC to present information in a balanced
way. I now know it is the BBC's firmly policed policy that the "science
is settled" and they do not need to cover the findings of contrarian
4. But when, in 2007, I saw those sane and sensible men putting forward
an alternative viewpoint on Channel4 I was provoked into educating myself about
so-called "anthropogenic global warming" and it has been my main interest and subject
of study ever since. I know what the "warmers" argue and I know what the
sceptic rebuttals are. The response to those counter-arguments
invariably disintegrates into ad hominem attacks, aspersions of
intellectual inadequacy and the imputation of low motives. I have experienced
this abuse myself from AGW believers. So be it. It that puts me in
the company of people like Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, John Christy, Tim
Ball, Steve McIntyre et al I am proud of the fact.
What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific
5. I know this committee accepted the reality of global warming and the
role of CO2 back in 1999-2001 and that virtually the whole parliament voted for
the November 2008 Climate Change Act, but you really must stand back a
little from this now "conventional wisdom" and renew your perspective in the
light of the CRU "Climategate" revelations and the groundswell of scientific
opposition that led up to and provoked them.
6. The Hadley Centre and the CRU are far too closely entwined with
the IPCC, with advocacy organisations like the Tyndall Centre and with UK
government policy-makers to be truly independent bases of expertise.
Scores of scientists round the world, some of them struggling WITHIN the biased
IPCC process are now challenging what has become effectively
state-promoted and established climate orthodoxy. We are in danger of
7. The CRU lies embedded at the heart of an internationally connected web
of government departments, the IPCC, NGOs, environmental charities,
funding/research councils, universities, science foundations, the mainstream
media, the BBC and, increasingly, energy corporations, big business,
financial exchanges and Carbon Traders. Here the central ideology
that I have dubbed "Climatechangeism" is the dominant and unquestioned
8. In fact, "Climatechangeism" has become so enthrenched in the value
system of certain western intelligenzias that it has become THE dominant
politically correct challenge of the epoch. Extirpating this dubious
ideology from its entrenched position is strongly resisted by all the vested
interests listed above as well as by the scientists themselves who have become
politicised. This process is evident from the increasingly
confrontational tone of the CRU emails over time
9. The CRU's IPCC-oriented research was not funded to pursue Blue Sky
thinking about the climate, it was funded to expose the anthropogenic
"signal" in what was taken as given - unprecedented global mean temperature
10. I have to admit that I have my doubts about EVEN that now - given the
messing about with "adjustment and homogenisation" that has been done with the
raw temperature data and major issues over the siting and selectionof surface
stations. Scientists round the world are complaining that CRU has cherry-picked
national surface station data and distorted it. Re Scandinavia,
Australia, Antarctica and New Zealand
there are protests that raw temperature trends have been adjusted and/or
selected to demonstrate warming from datasets that show no trend other than
11. Even raw data is already contaminated by the Urban Heat Island
Effect, in rural areas as well as cities, because it does not take much of a
change in the environment round a measuring station to bias the thermometer
readings upwards. However Dr Phil Jones says its effect is
negligible. How can the growth of population from 1.8 billion in 1900 to 6.8
billion today, with associated urbanisation, be deemed negligible? Most
thermometers are sited in these areas of population growth. If we
cannot actually measure the global temperature with accuracy how can anyone say
the temperature rise (IF there is one) is "unprecedented"?
12. Can claimed global temperature changes of less than one degree
Celsius over the whole of the 20th century century REALLY be taken as a
serious basis for major upheavals in policy and taxation in view of the
margins of error involved which are far in excess of the purported trend?
Remember, please, it is only the climate's purported "sensitivity" via
postulated postive (never negative) feedbacks that would lead to
"runaway" change. Surely a little more research money and
scientific effort can be put into investigating these currently unknown climate
feedback mechanisms, before big policy changes are pursued?
13. We are increasingly seeing evidence that historical temperature data
has been adjusted downwards to create a spurious and/or enhanced upward trend
over the 20th century. Transparency of data and computer code for all
taxpayer funded research is the very least we are entitled to demand. No-one
should have to file FOIA requests to view data. Dr Jones has shown
himself politically compromised in attempting to corrupt the FOI process.
He is not fit to be in charge either of archiving or the adjustment of
CRU's temperature series.
14. Then there is the palaeo data - Keith Briffa's speciality (and
Michael Mann's) most notably the tree ring proxies for historical temperature
reconstructions. How was dendrochronology ever permitted to escape from
university Archaeology Departments? By some ambitious dendrochronologist
seeking to expand his sources of funding, in all likelihood! Wooden
thermometers! What sane person would give the concept the time of
day? But it got funded at the CRU, didn't it, and in a big way, too?
15. And when the tree ring proxy data diverged from the instrumental
record post-1960 it was deleted from the graphs used in IPCC AR4 and
elsewhere to "hide the decline" and seemlessly melded on to the instrumental
record. This "divergence" was effectively concealed in the graphs and never
adequately explained in the accompanying text. What scientists worth
their salt ignore such a paradox revealed in supposedly crucial data?
Those who believe no-one will ever audit their "findings", is the answer, I'm
afraid. Another reason for more transparency.
16. In the IPCC process, where both Jones and Briffa were Lead Authors,
they were in a position to be judge and jury of their OWN research and did
their best to exclude any criticism of their viewpoint while bending the rules
to include the work of their suporters and, let it be said, co-authors and
collaborators. Thus the whole uncertain pile of "evidence" for warming
was corruptly and artificially beefed up to demonstrate a degree of
certaintly that was, in fact, absent.
17. There was too much funding at the CRU chasing far too few realistic
and genuinely independent avenues of enquiry. Everyone was reworking the same
old data bases and reviewing eachothers' "research" within a tight network of
co-authorship exposed by Prof Wegman for the US Congress in 2001.
Everyone was trying VERY hard to work backwards from the answer they had
been given a priori - that the climate WAS changing and would continue to
change "catastrophically" and that mankind was to blame. Just find the
smoking gun, boys! So they did what they were funded to do and have
essentially ended up in a fist-fight with scientists who displayed more
allegiance to the rigours of the scientific method.
18. The CRU team went along with the flow of the funding - at least
they never publicly denounced the catastrophism of James Hansen, Michael
Mann, Al Gore and our very own "climatologist in chief" Sir John Houghton, did
they? They might have expressed doubts privately (at least Keith Briffa
did) but on the whole as time went on they increasingly chose to decry
critics as "deniers", cranks, morons or self-serving interest groups, whilst
probably thanking God for the long-term funding that came on back of the cimate
scare stories that would take them nicely up to retirement.
19. THIS was unforgiveable and has set back the real science by
decades. The result is a whole generation of young scientists who now
think they have to pretend to believe and promote the STILL unproven hypothesis
of AGW. Otherwise they can expect to be subject to the dirty tricks and
partisan culture revealed in the climategate emails to discredit and silence
critics and manipulate peer- review as a process of gatekeeping in defense of
20. CRU was politicised from the start of its involvement with the
IPCC. A large and lucrative part of the UEA is a cottage industry
of folk on the make from "climatechangeism", swapping jobs, swapping hats,
moving to and from the USA
like Tom Wigley, Prof Robert Watson, and Mike Hulme. I cannot help but
think that if the CRU had been in a centre of REAL academic excellence
like Oxford or Cambridge that CO2-induced
"climatechangeism" would have been flattened at birth before some bright
media-savvy whizz-kid had the chance to get it out of the seminar room.
21. Had the giants of science like Einstein, Rutherford, Feynman or
Bronowski still been around do you think this threadbare, slipshod hypothesis
that "CO2 will cause runaway global warming" would have been permitted to
infect the world the way it has? It would have been laughed out of
court. Intellectual mediocrity is the hallmark of modern mainstream
"climatology", I'm afraid. Yet the CRU "scientists" are represented as
the equals of the luminaries of the Manhattan Project or Bletchley Park struggling against time to save the
world from ecological disaster in necessary secrecy from an invented
22. What overblown self-aggrandizement of data collection clerks
and number crunchers! Most of what CRU does is just arithmetic, after
all, They don't even collect the data themseleves they merely process it.
It's not exactly an abstruse methodology. But their methods are still
publicly undocumented and have been shown to be unreliable and
misleading. Look at the Harry Read Me file, for example, where the
struggles of a CRU programmer are exposed.
23. We have to get rid of politicised climate science driven by
ideologues and cheered on by well-meaning "environmentalists" probably as
ignorant as I used to be. The controllers of the climate agenda at the Met
Office, the Tyndall Centre and the CRU have been permitted to let inadequate
models plus large helpings of ideology to govern their interpretation of
24. The increasing remoteness of the Met Office weather forecasts from
reality is neither surprising or unexpected! Many suspect they believe
the warming bias they have fed into their models courtesy of CO2, a gas whose
role at the planetary level has not been quantified despite to repeated
assertion to the contrary.
25. There is so much to learn about how the climate system works in all
its complexity but it has to be via value-free methods of
investigation. The CRU has been funded with the public's own money,
dispensed by ideologues both public and private to back UK climate
research into a blind alley courtesy of the Greenhouse Gas Mafia. Please
censure those who who have permitted this phoney science culture to thrive and
Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on
3 December 2009 by UEA adequate.
26. No. Sir Muir Russell is not sufficiently independent of the Government/Business/Climatology
Establishment. He is also compromised by his association with Scottish
27. Investigation of the Climategate emails and data files is too much
work for one person largely ignorant of the field since the devil is in the detail
and the nuances of the emails and files.
28. A team of specialists should be appointed to work on the case,
including statisticians and computer scientists who are independent of
the IPCC clique and its fellow-travellers in government and funding
councils and who are untainted with "AGW" partisanship. An enquiry of
such world-wide importance merits nothing less.