Memorandum submitted by

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (CRU 27)





1. The Global Warming Policy Foundation is a registered charity (no. 1131448) of an educational nature. Further details may be obtained from our website, The Foundation's Chairman, the Rt Hon Lord Lawson of Blaby, and its Director, Dr Benny Peiser, will be happy to give oral evidence at the Committee's projected March evidence session in elaboration of this brief written submission. If invited, we may wish to be accompanied, if the Committee agrees, by an expert in one of the matters at issue. We have no declarable interests.


2. On the first of your three questions, we believe there are four distinct issues, viz:

(i) Have the CRU scientists been manipulating the raw surface temperature data in a way that is less than wholly objective and dispassionate?

(ii) Have they refused dissenting scientists and/or other outsiders with a bona fide interest in global warming access to the raw data, contrary to the proper canons of scientific research and to the demands of scientific integrity?

(iii) Have they been improperly seeking to avoid answering Freedom of Information Act requests?

(iv) Have they actively sought to prevent papers by dissenting scientists, statisticians, or other informed commentators from being peer-reviewed and/or published, again contrary to the proper canons of scientific research and to the demands of scientific integrity?


3. We believe that there is compelling evidence both independent of the leaked email exchanges and arising from those emails to suggest that the answers to (ii), (iii) and (iv) above are clearly 'yes'. As to (i) above, we believe that the jury is still out, although the motive for the improper behaviour involved in (ii), (iii) and (iv) above needs to be investigated, as it may well have a bearing on the answer to this. Moreover, we are disturbed by the CRU scientists' treatment of the so-called divergence problem. That is the fact that, for that period of time where both a proxy global temperature series and a recorded global temperature series are available, the two series markedly diverge. This clearly suggests either that the proxy series is unreliable or that the recorded series is unreliable (or possibly both: the point is that they cannot both be true). The CRU scientists' attempt to hide the problem by concealing the divergence demonstrates, we believe, a lack of integrity.


4. On the second of your three questions, we believe that the terms of reference of the Muir Russell inquiry are almost, but not entirely, adequate. Lord Lawson has written to Sir Muir Russell, on behalf of the GWPF, setting out how we believe the terms of reference (and the modus operandi of the inquiry) should be strengthened. Lord Lawson's letter, and Sir Muir Russell's reply, are appended as an annexe to this submission.[1]


5. Lastly, on the third of your three questions, there are, in fact, four (not two) other international data sets, all based in the United States. Two of them - NASA and NOAA - are neither wholly independent of each other (unsurprisingly, since they are both US Government agencies) nor wholly independent of the CRU set, as indeed some of the leaked email traffic indicates. The third, and fourth, which - unlike CRU, NASA and NOAA - use not surface weather stations but satellite observations, are compiled by the University of Alabama at Hunstville (UAH) and Remote Sensing Systems (RSS). They are entirely independent of the CRU. They use the same satellite data as each other but different methodology and produce similar results to each other, which differ from those of the CRU.



The Rt Hon Lord Lawson of Blaby, Chairman,

The Global Warming Policy Foundation

February 2010

[1] Not printed