Scientist at heart of climategate row cleared
Updated on 31 March 2010
Climate scientists must publish all their raw data and methods to ensure the research is "irreproachable", MPs examining the "climategate" row over global warming science said today.
Phil Willis, chairman of the Commons Science and Technology Committee, said a "culture of non-disclosure" at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in response to Freedom of Information (FoI) requests for climate data was "reprehensible".
The university's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) has been under fire since hacked emails, which sceptics claimed showed scientists hiding and manipulating climate data, were leaked online last year.
Some of the leaked emails suggested a "blunt refusal" by the CRU's head Professor Phil Jones to share scientific data, a report by the Commons committee into the affair said.
But Mr Willis said the committee's short inquiry - one of three reviews launched in the wake of the emails emerging - had found no evidence that Prof Jones hid or manipulated data to back up his own science.
Much of the criticism of CRU by sceptics has focused on an email in which Prof Jones talks about using a "trick" to "hide the decline" in temperature records sourced from tree ring data in the 1960s.
But the MPs said the phrases were colloquialisms and did not represent a systematic attempt to mislead.
The report found Prof Jones had no case to answer over allegations of dishonesty and his scientific reputation was intact - although one of the committee's MPs, Graham Stringer, said the inquiry could have been more thorough on the issue.
The committee also said it sympathised with Prof Jones over his frustration at requests from sceptics asking for information "purely to undermine his research".
But Mr Willis said: "In reality, that's no excuse. If people want that information for whatever motive, provided it is a scientific motive, it's important in terms of confidence to make that available."
The report also said that Prof Jones' actions in not releasing data and his methods for drawing conclusions were in line with those of other climate scientists - but that those practices needed to change.
"Climate change is a matter of global importance," Mr Willis said.
"Governments are spending trillions of pounds on mitigating global warming and the quality of the science has to be irreproachable."
ANALYSIS: Science correspondent Julian Rush
This report completely exonerates Professor Phil Jones and the Climatic Research Unit at UEA.
Though it had been obvious from early on, it is clear now that there was little or no substance in the claims of the tiny handful of climate sceptics, who have conducted a noisy campaign against Jones and his colleagues to further their aim of exaggerating doubts about climate science.
But it does point to failings within the University of East Anglia on how it handled Freedom of Information requests and to a common practice that had grown up among scientists of not publishing the raw data and computer codes in their academic papers - a practice which it says is entirely understandable but which the committee says should change, not least because the quality of the science must be seen to be irreproachable.
(Raw data is often difficult to handle; most climate scientists work from data sets derived from it that have been checked and shaped into a more useable form. Such data sets were in the public domain and the methods used to clean up the raw data were openly published too, contrary to the sceptics' claims).
It is clear too that there has been damage to the credibility of climate science. The university mishandled the crisis in the beginning and climate scientists were too slow to come out of their corner fighting, in part, perhaps, because they were weary of the incessant attacks by the sceptics.
In that sense, the sceptics have won a victory - of sorts - but it has been a bitter lesson for the science community. Two inquiries are ongoing - an internal one at the university and the police investigation into the original theft of the emails. In all the brouhaha, it's been easy to lose sight of the fact that a criminal act took place. Who did it, why, and on whose instruction is the real story here.
The MPs said much of the responsibility for failing to disclose information in response to FoI requests lay with the University of East Anglia, rather than its small Climatic Research Unit.
They said the inquiry had found "prima facie" evidence that UEA supported the culture at CRU of not disclosing information, and of instances where information may have been deleted to avoid disclosure.
Mr Willis said UEA should have challenged what was going on at CRU, "rather than work with them to deny these people information".
And the MPs called for further investigation of whether the Freedom of Information Act had been breached, following indications from the Information Commissioner that it may have been, but that the time limit for a prosecution had been exceeded.
The UEA said it welcomed the report from the committee, and accepted the need for greater transparency in climate science.
The university also said it would reassess how it supported its academics in dealing with FoI requests and was continuing to review and improve processes at the institution.
UEA vice-chancellor Edward Acton said: "We are delighted that the select committee has produced a fair and balanced report that makes crystal-clear that the 'scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact'.
"We are pleased too that it has dispelled and rejected many of the myths that have arisen over the matter, while accepting that we have been taken to task on a number of issues which we are determined to address."
Lord Lawson, a climate change sceptic and chairman the Global Warming Policy Foundation think tank, said: "This clean bill of health given to Professor Jones is a very odd."
"They find he deliberately succeeded in concealing sets of measurements in order to make a point. Somehow they find that to be normal scientific practice, which I find astonishing," he said.
