Prof Jones and CRU praised & vindicated again

CRU scientists have just been praised for their efforts in a report which once again showed any claims of scientific impropriety and dishonesty are completely false and unwarranted. The review was led by Lord Oxburgh and comprised an international panel of leading experts of impeccable character and credentials. It assessed the integrity of the research published by the Climatic Research Unit in the light of various external assertions.

Will deniosaurs recant their allegations which have again been shown to be completely wrong? Probably not, because there are unfortunately some scurrilous people who are not interested in the truth, only in pushing their own twisted agenda.

As a taster from the Oxburgh panel report:

"We believe that CRU did a public service of great value by carrying out much time-consuming meticulous work on temperature records at a time when it was unfashionable and attracted the interest of a rather small section of the scientific community."

And more:

"We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it. Rather we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention..."

"...In detailed discussion with the researchers we found them to be objective and dispassionate in their view of the data and their results, and there was no hint of tailoring results to a particular agenda. Their sole aim was to establish as robust a record of centuries as possible. All of the published work was accompanied by detailed descriptions of uncertainties and accompanied by appropriate caveats."

And for the critics:

"We have not exhaustively reviewed the external criticism of the dendroclimatological work, but it seems that some of these criticisms show a rather selective and uncharitable approach to information made available by CRU. They seem also to reflect a lack of awareness of the ongoing and dynamic nature of chronologies, and of the difficult circumstances under which university research is sometimes conducted. Funding and labour pressures and the need to publish have meant that pressing ahead with new work has been at the expense of what was regarded as non-essential record keeping...."

"...Recent public discussion of climate change and summaries and popularizations of the work of CRU and others often contain oversimplifications that omit serious discussion of uncertainties emphasized by the original authors."

And in regard to FoI:

A host of important unresolved questions also arises from the application of Freedom of Information legislation in an academic context.

I agree with them – FoI shouldn’t apply to academic research. I doubt very much that was the intention when FoI was introduced. It just happened that no-one anticipated it would be used to query research, let alone to try to stop research and to threaten scientists, as it has been. It was designed to make administrative decisions more transparent

---

We cannot simply ignore those who want to destroy what we have. We still need to put in the effort to let people know the extent of the harm we are doing to our world by emitting CO2.

But it's also past time to start taking action individually and collectively, to minimise the harmful effects from the impending climate crash.

And there is a lot we can do, starting with reducing our power bills by being a bit more careful. Some of us will invest in solar power and hybrid cars, which are becoming more affordable. We will urge government to wean us off dirty coal. Geothermic, wind and tidal power are real alternatives that must be used more widely.

We can and will reduce carbon emissions, and with minimal cost if we act quickly - and get a cleaner, greener earth to enjoy.

CRU exonerated by UK committee

The UK Parliamentary Committee has exonerated Dr Jones and CRU, found that they have no case to answer and concluded that the science is sound (thanks to Mike who's Watchingthedeniers and Eli Rabbett for the news).

The Science and Technology Committee today publishes its report on the disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. The Committee calls for the climate science community to become more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies.

Phil Willis MP, Committee Chair, said:

"Climate science is a matter of global importance. On the basis of the science, governments across the world will be spending trillions of pounds on climate change mitigation. The quality of the science therefore has to be irreproachable. What this inquiry revealed was that climate scientists need to take steps to make available all the data that support their work and full methodological workings, including their computer codes. Had both been available, many of the problems at CRU could have been avoided."

The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones's refusal to share raw data and computer codes, the Committee considers that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community but that those practices need to change.

On the much cited phrases in the leaked e-mails—"trick" and "hiding the decline"—the Committee considers that they were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead.

Insofar as the Committee was able to consider accusations of dishonesty against CRU, the Committee considers that there is no case to answer.

The Committee found no reason in this inquiry to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, that "global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity". But this was not an inquiry into the science produced by CRU and it will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel, announced by the University on 22 March, to determine whether the work of CRU has been soundly built.

On the mishandling of Freedom of Information (FoI) requests, the Committee considers that much of the responsibility should lie with the University, not CRU. The leaked e-mails appear to show a culture of non-disclosure at CRU and instances where information may have been deleted to avoid disclosure, particularly to climate change sceptics. The failure of the University to grasp fully the potential damage this could do and did was regrettable. The University needs to re-assess how it can support academics whose expertise in FoI requests is limited.

See here for the announcement.

UK Science Committee hearings on CRU

I've just been watching the hearing of the UK House of Commons (HoC) Science and Technology Committee looking at the disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

The Committee questioned witnesses, most of whom would be expected. However the first witnesses were a couple of rather strange people - a certain Rt Hon Lord Lawson of Blaby, Chairman, and Dr Benny Peiser, Director, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. This "Foundation" was only set up in November 2009, coincidentally just after the CRU's emails were stolen. The Chairman refused to disclose to the HoC committee the names of any donor.

The Global Warming Policy Foundation is colocated at 1 Carlton Terrace London with the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining. Its website lists several people on the Board (mostly old public servants)and says it gets all its funds from private individuals and charitable trusts (which in the UK means any non-profit organisation, not charities in the normal sense of the word). It says it doesn't accept donations from energy companies or anyone with a significant interest in an energy company. The website suggests that Peiser is the only employee, so they probably don't get or need much money. Their aim seems to be to put out papers denying the world is warming.

The first two witnesses were an odd couple, not just in appearance but in demeanor and in their rather extreme conspiracy theories. They wanted to accuse all the world's scientists and research institutions of fraud, and while they insinuated as much they did seem to stop short of saying it outright - at least at the hearing. As in their written submission, these two tried to make much of the 'divergence problem', probably not realising there is no problem at all. They were also a bit behind the times in regard to satellite data, thinking it showed a different trend to surface observations (which it doesn't).

The other witnesses included Richard Thomas, the immediate past Freedom of Information Commissioner, Sir Muir Russell who is heading up Independent Climate Change E-Mails Review, and three of the top scientists in the UK, Professor John Beddington, Government Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Julia Slingo OBE, Chief Scientist, Met Office, and Professor Bob Watson, Chief Scientist, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs . The scientists appeared together and were unanimous and forceful in stating the earth is warming and its caused by human activities. I thought they could have been more clear about when data and workings should be made available to the public, and that most scientists in other fields don't put all their stuff on the internet for the public to pull apart. (I'd love to see the face of physicists everywhere if they were told to put up all their workings and data on the internet 'immediately'.)

The key witnesses were Professor Jones and Professor Edward Acton, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of East Anglia. Professor Jones was very straight in his responses. Acton hardly said a word but was supportive of Jones.

None of the witnesses pointed out that the main protagonist in all of this debacle, McIntyre was hardly squeaky clean and certainly not a climate scientist. I thought someone at least should have pointed that out. Neither did anyone point out that the FOI storm was instigated from McIntyre's website, with the majority of the 61 requests of last year coming in over a forty-eight hour period.

Some of those on the committee were better informed than I expected them to be. I'd be surprised if they decided to do anything other than wait for report from the Muir Russell inquiry.