Volume 1

The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia : eighth report of session 2009-10.

  • Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Select Committee on Science and Technology
Date:
2010
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia : eighth report of session 2009-10. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    18/68 page 14
    37. CRU’s refusal to release the raw data gave some the impression that it was deliberately keeping its work private so that its studies could not “be replicated and critiqued”.*° The Peabody Energy Company said of CRU that “they appeared to be particularly concerned that putting their information in the public domain would expose their work to criticism”.*! Even an effort to conduct a simple quality check was said to be thwarted by CRU’s unwillingness to share the data it had used.” In contrast, NASA has been able to make all its raw data available as well as its programmes.” 38. We recognise that some of the e-mails suggest a blunt refusal to share data, even unrestricted data, with others. We acknowledge that Professor Jones must have found it frustrating to handle requests for data that he knew—or perceived—were motivated by a desire simply to seek to undermine his work. But Professor Jones’s failure to handle helpfully requests for data in a field as important and controversial as climate science was bound to be viewed with suspicion. He was obviously frustrated by other workers in the field trying to “undermine” his work, but his actions were inevitably counterproductive. Professor Jones told us that the published e-mails represented only “one tenth of 1%” of his output, which amounts to one million e-mails, and that we were only seeing the end of a protracted series of e-mail exchanges. We consider that further suspicion could have been allayed by releasing all the e-mails. In addition, we consider that had the available raw data been available online from an early stage, these kinds of unfortunate e-mail exchanges would not have occurred. In our view, CRU © should have been more open with its raw data and followed the more open approach of NASA to making data available. 39. We are not in a position to set out any further the extent, if any, to which CRU should have made the data available in the interests of transparency, and we hope that the Independent Climate Change Email Review will reach specific conclusions on this point. However, transparency and accountability are of are increasing importance to the public, so we recommend that the Government reviews the rules for the accessibility of data sets collected and analysed with UK public money. Methods 40. The Royal Society of Chemistry in its submission made it clear that: It is essential that the public and all non-specialists remain truly confident in the scientific method to provide a sound scientific evidence-base on which strong decisions can be made.™ There have been criticisms that Professor Jones and colleagues have, not shared their methodologies. Andrew Montford, author of The Hockey Stick Illusion,* pointed out in his memorandum that: 50 Ev 194 [Peabody Energy Company], para 20 51 As above 52 Ev 152 [Steven Mosher], para 8 53 Q 150 [Professor Jones] 54 Ev 170, summary
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3