Climategate: UEA 'unhelpful' on data requests
Updated on 07 July 2010
A review into the "climategate" email row found the "rigour and honesty" of the scientists was not in doubt, but they had not been sufficiently open about their studies. Channel 4 News looks back on how events unfolded.
The independent review, led by Sir Muir Russell, followed the row sparked when 13 years of emails sent by scientists at the University of East Anglia's climate research unit (CRU) were hacked into and posted online.
Climate sceptics seized upon the emails, claiming that she showed scientists manipulating and suppressing data in order to support the idea that climate change was caused by human actions.
Sir Muir said: "Climate science is a matter of such global importance that the highest standards of honesty, rigour and openness are needed in its conduct.
"On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt."
Sir Muir said the allegation that the CRU had "something to hide" and its research into changes in global temperature could not be trusted because the scientists were concealing or manipulating data "does not stand up".
The review also found that a graph referred to in a now infamous email from the centre's head, Professor Phil Jones, in which he described a "trick" to "hide the decline" in data on temperatures, was "misleading" because it did not make plain what the scientists had done.
The graph, showing global temperature rises, was also used in a key report by the World Meteorological Organisation in 1999.
More on climategate from Channel 4 News:
- Climategate: science unit gets 'clean bill of health'
- Scientist at heart of climategate row cleared
- Sceptics seek second climategate panel casualty
- Climate email row: scientists speak out
- Leaked climate emails 'hacked by spies'
The investigation cleared CRU researchers of other allegations, including the suggestion the emails showed researchers were subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure papers they disagreed with were not published.
But Sir Muir's inquiry found there was "unhelpfulness" in CRU's response to Freedom of Information requests, and evidence that emails might have been deleted to make them unavailable for any subsequent request.
"There seems no doubt that CRU got themselves into a position that they were unhelpful in response to legitimate requests, and there are plenty of references to anxiety about what critics would use the data for," Sir Muir said.
Sir Muir said: "I think it is inevitable that people who have made up their minds have made up their minds. But this is certainly not a whitewash."
Climategate row: how it unfolded
Last November, 13 years of emails were obtained by hackers from the CRU, and were then published online. Sceptics claimed that the emails contained evidence that leading climate scientists were manipulating data to back up a theory of man-made global warming. They were leaked a few weeks before the UN climate summit in Copenhagen.
CRU director Professor Phil Jones found himself at the centre of the row because his messages included talk of a "trick" to "hide the decline" in global warming and apparent refusal to release information to people he thought would misuse it. He denied any attempt to manipulate the data.
The then climate change secretary Ed Miliband denounced the "flat-Earthers" who he said were attempting to undermine climate science. The Met Office and CRU began to publish the raw data, which they had to seek permission to release as they did not own, from hundreds of weather stations to show temperatures were rising.
On 3 December, the University of East Anglia announced an independent review, which has released its findings today. Prof Jones stood aside from his post during the review. Another independent review, this time into the science, was also announced by the University on 11 January.
A member of the review team stepped down the same day the panel was announced after doubts were cast over his impartiality.
Prof Jones appeared before the Commons science and technology committee, who launched their own inquiry, on 1 March. The committee said Prof Jones had "no case to answer" over allegations of dishonesty, but criticised the "culture of non disclosure" over freedom of information requests at UEA.
On 14 April, the inquiry into the science found "absolutely no evidence of impropriety whatsoever".
'Extremely relieved'
The University of East Anglia's vice chancellor, Edward Acton, said the review had exonerated UEA climate scientists, but accepted the conclusion that the university should and could have been "more proactively open", especially, he said, as it had nothing to hide. He said Prof Jones had been offered a new role as director of research at CRU.
Prof Jones issued a statement which said: "I am, of course, extremely relieved that this review has now been completed.
"We have maintained all along that our science is honest and sound and this has been vindicated now by three different independent external bodies.
"There are lessons to be learned from this affair and I need time to reflect on them before speaking in public, particularly given the scope of this report.
"Meanwhile, I would like to thank those who have supported me over this period and now I would like to concentrate on my new role as director of research in the Climatic Research Centre, which will allow me to focus my full attention on the science of climate change."
