2 Setting up the independent reviews
The Scientific Assessment Panel
(SAP)
20. In the UEA press release issued on 11 February
2010, Professor Davies said, in announcing the Scientific Assessment
Panel (SAP), that "there should be an additional assessment
considering the science itself".[27]
Professor Acton then explained to the former Committee in oral
evidence on 1 March 2010 that the SAP was "to reassess the
science and make sure there is nothing wrong".[28]
A subsequent UEA press release on 22 March 2010, announced
that Lord Oxburgh would "chair an independent Scientific
Assessment Panel to examine important elements of the published
science of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University
of East Anglia".[29]
Our predecessor Committee took the view that "reputation
has to be built on the solid foundation of excellent, peer reviewed
science" and that the review of the science to be carried
out by the SAP, which was 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".[30]
21. The subtle change in language between 11 February
and 22 March has been interpreted by some as a change in the purpose
of the SAP from being about the "quality of the science"
to the "integrity of the science", i.e. from "was
the science right?" to "was it carried out correctly?".[31]
Lord Oxburgh explained to us that what Professor Acton had said
on 1 March 2010 "was inaccurate", and that the scope
of the panel was made clear in the press notice issued on 22 March
2010 when the panel was appointed.[32]
The press notice Lord Oxburgh referred to stated that the panel
would "examine important elements of the published science
of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East
Anglia".[33] Lord
Oxburgh explained how he took on the task:
I was visited in Cambridge by the deputy vice-chancellor
and another senior member of the University, who wanted to persuade
me to take this on. This had to be done rapidly. This was their
concern. They really wanted something within a month, and there
is no way that our panel could [...] validate the science. In
fact, if you wanted the science validated you'd actually appoint
a different panel. You probably wouldn't appoint me as chairman,
and you would actually need experts from the field, because it
is a very different activity to see whether things are wrong from
saying, "Yes, they're right," or "They have been
done properly" or "improperly". It is very different.
It really is quite different. So I was quite clear. What we took
on was really to look at the integrity of the researchers, and
we couldn't really have done anything different from that.[34]
22. Professor Acton acknowledged that the phrase,
"Look at the science and see if there is anything wrong"
was open to different interpretations.[35]
He appeared to us to question whether such a review would serve
any purpose. He pointed out that reassessments of the scientific
literature on climate change had been carried out recently in
the US by both the National Research Council (part of the National
Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering)[36]
and the Environmental Protection Agency.[37]
He also made the point that, "the science published by the
CRU is constantly being considered by colleagues across the world.
That is the nature of science—that people have a great interest
to test, examine and see if they can advance and refine work currently
commanding the field".[38]
23. It is our view that the most reasonable interpretation
of the UEA press notice of 11 February 2010 and the Vice-Chancellor's
statement on 1 March 2010 was that the Scientific Assessment Panel
would examine the quality of the science as well as the integrity.
In the event, Lord Oxburgh and his colleagues on the Panel carried
out a narrower inquiry that focussed on the Climatic Research
Unit's methodologies and the integrity of the research. Had the
scope and purpose of the SAP been made clear from the beginning
of February it would have avoided much confusion and the inevitable
allegation of manipulation.
The Independent Climate Change
E-mails Review (ICCER)
24. The former Science and Technology Committee asked
the ICCER team to consider whether its terms of reference needed
revision. The Committee recommended:
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.[39]
25. In response, Sir Muir Russell stated: "The
CCER has seen no need to amend its terms of reference. It notes
in particular the Committee's wish to see the Review recommend
future best practice. The Review has always understood its remit
to include such recommendations, and therefore sees no need for
any change in this respect."[40]
In the event, the ICCER addressed issues of relevance to climate
science in general and we deal with some of these issues in our
Report. The general recommendations made by the ICCER to UEA about
future best practice are outlined in paragraph 94 of this Report.
The ICCER also makes specific recommendations about best practice
in dealing with the storage of data (paragraph 55) and requests
under the Freedom of Information Act (paragraph 87).
26. We accept that there was no need to amend
the terms of reference of the Independent Climate Change E-mails
Review, as recommendations on best practice were considered to
be included within the remit of the review.
Coordination between the two reviews
27. Also of concern to our predecessor Committee
was that there should be no unmanaged overlaps or gaps between
the two reviews.[41]
Sir Muir Russell assured us that, "while respecting the fact
that the two reviews were completely independent, CCER contacted
Lord Oxburgh, Chair of the Scientific Appraisal Panel, to ensure
that he was aware of the approach being taken by CCER to issues
that might bear on his work."[42]
Lord Oxburgh also acknowledged the importance of the independence
of the two reviews.[43]
27 "New scientific assessment of climatic research
publications announced", UEA press notice, 11 February 2010 Back
28
HC (2009-10) 387-II, Q 129 Back
29
"CRU Scientific Assessment Panel announced", UEA press
notice, 22 March 2010 Back
30
HC (2009-10) 387-II, para 131 Back
31
Roger Harrabin, BBC Environmental Analyst, Radio 4 Today Programme,
7 July 2010, http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8795000/8795643.stm Back
32
Q 5 Back
33
"CRU Scientific Assessment Panel announced", UEA press
notice, 22 March 2010 Back
34
Q 8 Back
35
Q 51 Back
36
Q51; National Research Council, Advancing the Science of Climate
Change, 19 May 2010 Back
37
Q51; Environmental Protection Agency, Notice of Denial of the
Petitions to Reconsider the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute
Findings for Greenhouse Gases, 29 July 2010 Back
38
Q 55 Back
39
HC (2009-10) 387-I, para 114 Back
40
Ev 35, para 2; and Annex: The former Committee's recommendations
and the ICCER response Back
41
HC (2009-10) 387-I, para 134 Back
42
Ev 36, para 6; and Annex: The former Committee's recommendations
and the ICCER response Back
43
Q 20 Back
| 
