Climate email row: scientists speak out
Updated on 02 February 2010
As Phil Jones, the man at the centre of the climate change emails row, finally gives an account of himself, Peter Liss, his temporary replacement at the head of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, tells Channel 4 News Jones will get his job back and be vindicated. Tom Clarke reports.
Professor Phil Jones, of the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit, has faced allegations that he covered up flawed data on temperature rises.
But he said the 20-year-old study questioned by sceptics "stands up to scrutiny" and was corroborated by more recent work.
The research centre has been under fire from climate sceptics since 13 years of emails were stolen from university's servers and posted online in November in the run-up to the UN climate talks in Copenhagen.
One newspaper claimed Professor Jones withheld information from sceptic Douglas Keenan, who queried data from Chinese weather stations used in a 1990 study on global warming.
Professor Jones said he was confident the paper, which drew on 42 urban and 42 rural sites, was correct because it was validated by the new data.
And he said: "I am confident in my mind the site movements that might have taken place at some of the sites were not that important to affect the average of the 42 sites."
The paper also used records from Australia and what was then the USSR, over which no questions have ever been raised, he said.
He said that some of the Chinese sites may have moved to warmer or cooler places, and that it was the large scale average that was the key issue.
The later study showed an average 0.1C warming per decade due to urbanisation and 0.15C of climate warming each decade between 1951 and 2004.
Peter Liss, acting director of the university's climatic research unit, told Channel 4 News: "I think there is no question that the global temperature record produced by the climatic research unit is absolutely correct and of course it is vindicated by two other institutions in the United States, who have looked at the data and processed it in their ways.
"It is almost impossible to see a difference between the results so I think the results from the climatic research unit are rock solid."
Reports claim the Met Office has found mistakes in the research, but Professor Peter Liss insists any problems will not have a major effect on the report's findings.
He said: "Of course flaws are worrying and as soon as we know about them they will be corrected if they are flaws.
"But I think these flaws will be rather small details and I very much doubt they will make any significant difference to the global data set and the temperature record the climatic research unit has developed over the years.
"I don't think the accusation of sloppiness will stand. I think the scientists involved, who I know rather well, are very serious scientists. I think sloppiness is a statement you can easily make but is very hard to sustain.
"Obviously there is a concern because the media have been leaping on what I consider to be small details, sometimes accurately but generally not accurately.
"I think that does make doubts in the public's mind but I think the politicians seem to still be fully on board, they are making their commitments following the Copenhagen conference and all the major nations have signed up to their commitments.
"So I think the politicians judge it rather differently to some of the public.
"Of course if we are to cut carbon emissions it is all of us that will have to do the cutting."
Professor Liss also criticised the information commissioner for a lack of communication with the university.
He added: "As far as I am aware, the university has not received from the office of the information commissioner the judgement on the case.
"The last university heard about it was last August and the university has complied with all requests from the freedom of information office to provide data or reasons why they cannot provide data.
"I was extremely surprised to read about the information commissioner's thoughts and opinions in the newspapers rather than from the office directly. It sounds rather irregular.
"The university has been in contact and I don't think they've had any definitive answers out of them."
