The Reviews into the University of East Anglia's Climatic research Unit's E-mails - Science and Technology Committee Contents

Written evidence submitted by Mr & Mrs L Black (UEA Reviews 06)

  During The Science and Technology Select Committee inquiry 31 March 2010 regarding; The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia Professor Acton, Vice-Chancellor, University of East Anglia said:

    The CRU had only three staff to deal with FOI and develop science [Climate] "| May I point out, Chairman, that this is a very small unit. There are three fulltime members of academic staff within it |" ie only three staff were in a position to oversee, what effectively will result in the expenditure of public funds in the billions, in implementing Governmental Public Policy.


Q92 Professor Acton's response to Chairman:

    "May I point out, Chairman, that this is a very small unit. There are three fulltime members of academic staff within it and the manpower involved in exactly what has just been described is actually very considerable."

  Richard Thomas CBE, former Information Commissioner also said:

    There were only 60 or so FOI requests which in his experience "| does not strike me as being an absolutely huge number|" ie it was NOT excessive [and in any case it appears they binned them anyway or spent more time trying to avoid fulfilling them than it actually would have taken to answer them properly!


Q68 Ian Stewart to Mr. Thomas

    "I am also bound to say that I think a figure of around 60 has been mentioned. That does not strike me as being an absolutely huge number. We estimated in the first four or five years of the legislation about half a million requests across all public authorities were being made. Undoubtedly, it has been quite popular legislation, it has been heavily used, not just by the media and by researchers and campaigners, also by the general public, and so we would be reluctant to label a request as vexatious. I do recall one example—I think it involved Birmingham City Council—where an individual made about 200 requests about a particular allotment site in Birmingham and how that was being developed."


  The intention in this communication is not to dwell on the selection and suitability of Lord Oxburgh as the head of the inquiry [that has been widely questioned] ie his impartiality and other interests. However his responses to the panels' questions were equivocal, incomplete and somewhat obfuscated; quiet frankly we were astounded. It concerns us that Lord Oxburgh [in the Science and Technology Select Committee meeting 8th Sep] drew attention to the FOI requests as being an issue for the CRU [to deal with] and asked the panel Chairman to revisit FOI requests in respect of scientific establishments in the future ["|I do think that there are very interesting questions to be asked about the interface between the Freedom of Information Act and scientific research|" UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE]

  In respect of the CRU's difficulties in complying with them/or not as the case has been shown, it appears he wanted to throw another red herring back into the cooking pot!

  We wish to draw attention here [rather than repeat the reasons for the FOIA] to Heather Brooke's excellent book, which we read last week, "The Silent State" isbn 978-0-434-02026-3. It demonstrates her attempts to garner information from the UK establishment ie MP's expenses and other revelations, via the use of FOI's [and other disclosures including the massaging of publicly funded data, statistics and PR Spin, etc.]. We also suggest it should be on the list of essential reading for all publicly funded employees; MPs included.

  We do not wish to spell out the [obvious] reasons for this provision [FOIA—see your own document Richard Thomas CBE Memorandum submitted by Richard Thomas CBE (CRU 53) Freedom of Information Aspects].

  Funded research is paid for by our taxes and as such no public body should be able to hide behind exemptions unless it can be guaranteed that divulging it affects NATIONAL SECURITY or some other such criteria listed as relevant.

We accept some of this data was not owned by the CRU but it can be clearly seen it was using these FOI denials to ensure others were unable to do a "like for like" comparison using the same methodologies with the same raw data.

  How can it be that the CRU, with only three employees had to deal with "The Science" and only 60 FOI's yet the whole of Governmental Public Policy, costing potentially billions, depended on the results and performance of only three fulltime staff [who were also not as statistically competent as they ought to have been given it's significance]?

  How can we be in a situation where:

    1. Only three staff were in a position to oversee, what effectively will result in the egregious use of public funds in the billions, in implementing [or improperly supporting!] Governmental Public Policy within the UK [and elsewhere]?

    2. How can it be, that the analysis of this data has not been overseen or performed by a recognised statistical body, team or organisation?

    3. At each and every public pronouncement of the launch of these inquiries in to this matter [climategate, or during such inquiries] each of those heading or speaking on its/their behalf, imply or state the science is being dealt with else where. We have seen no such confirmation of the science [of the CRU's data cleaning/analysis input and output] as a result of these inquires [or 3rd party peer review] and furthermore given that:

     [source:,_what_is_going_on?.html which is a "warmist" web site]


    — CRU takes raw data as measured from various sources, processes and `cleans' it and makes it available for monthly updated download on their FTP site for other climate change academics to use. So, if CRU is found to be in error, then all these dependent academics must be considered in error as well.

    — CRU processed data is used to calibrate satellite proxy temperature readings, so if CRU is found to be in error, then all usage of said calibrated satellite proxy temperature data readings will be in error also.

    — CRU data is one of four key data sets used by the majority of climate change researchers—2 ground based, 2 satellite data based (to which said calibrations have been applied)—in essence up to 75% of the climate data in use is at risk of being shown to be invalid if CRU are found to be in error.

  These 4 data sets have been used by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) as core data in their research and conclusions—so if the CRU is found to be in error, the IPCC conclusions are also likely to be in error.


  It is of great concern that we are currently dependant on the CRU's output of temperature data, which it has "processed", consequently justifying the expenditure of vast amounts of public funds to support Governmental Public Policy [assuming the notion of Anthropogenic Global Warming] based on such doubtful and questionable data!

  The reasons for the implementation of sound ecological and environmental mechanisms and policies we accept.

  We look forward to sound science producing findings that will allow policy makers to put in place such mechanisms so as to preserve what we have now and for future generations.

  Climate Change, we now believe, is not due to human CO2 emissions [CO2 follows temperature rise it does not precede it] but by Solar radiation and Planetary cycles [Milankovitch Theory—see footnote]. The Carbon Emission Ponzi Scheme/Tax Gravy Train, or put more diplomatically Carbon Trading Derivatives Scheme, is an inappropriate method of financing the changes as the public are being misled by chicanery which is only going to line the pockets further of the miscreants that lead to the recent collapse of the financial industry.

  The CRU has been the complier of data on which governmental "public policy" is based and subsequently on which these financial schemes are also based. The CRU was under investigation for violation of The Freedom of Information Act 2000, fraud and other possible violations of British and International law and indeed may have been found guilty of breaking the law had not a technicality prevented prosecution, causing further doubts about their methods and ethics.

  Instead we should be validating the science and if necessary spending these funds on adapting to Climate Change, which has existed for millennia.

  It seems there is a "Lobby" element operating in the scientific community along with the finance industry, NGOs and other advocacy groups directing public policy on Climate Change which is totally unacceptable.

Mr & Mrs L Black

Note: Source

Milankovitch Theory describes the collective effects of changes in the Earth's movements upon its climate, named after Serbian civil engineer and mathematician Milutin Milankovic, who worked on it during First World War internment. Milankovic mathematically theorised that variations in eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth's orbit determined climatic patterns on Earth.

previous page contents next page

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

© Parliamentary copyright 2011
Prepared 25 January 2011