Climate scientists need to swallow their misgivings and share their data and working methods with their critics. So concludes an inquiry by into the 鈥渃limategate鈥� affair, in which damaging emails were copied from a computer server at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK, and published on the internet.
But, in an unexpected turn of events, the House of Commons science and technology committee has placed more blame for the debacle on the university than on the scientists at its (CRU), whose emails were stolen, and the unit鈥檚 director Phil Jones.
Advertisement
This verdict, rushed out before parliament is dissolved for the upcoming general election, puts the launched last December in a strange position. Vice-chancellor Edward Acton asked the inquiry to report on possible misdemeanours at CRU. Now MPs suggest that the university itself may be at least as much to blame.
The MPs found that the leaked emails reveal that a 鈥渃ulture of withholding information appears to have pervaded CRU [that] we consider unacceptable鈥�. Some information 鈥渕ay have been deleted鈥�, possibly in breach of the law. The MPs do not accept CRU鈥檚 claim that its staff were simply overwhelmed by requests for data, often frivolous. Rather, CRU鈥檚 鈥渦nhelpful approach鈥� to requests led to them 鈥渕ultiplying鈥�.
Sympathy for the scientist
Jones and Acton gave evidence to the MPs during oral hearings at the start of March. The MPs were clearly impressed with Jones鈥檚 sincerity.
鈥淲e can sympathise with Professor Jones, who must have found it frustrating to handle requests for data that he knew 鈥� or perceived 鈥� were motivated by a desire simply to undermine his work.鈥� His actions were 鈥渋nevitably counterproductive,鈥� the MPs conclude, but much of it was 鈥渃ommon practice in the climate science community鈥�.
They call for the climate scientists in general to become more open but conclude that, so far as they can tell, 鈥渢he scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact鈥�. The MPs say the university shares a lot of the blame for climategate. Its 鈥渇ailure to grasp fully the potential damage [from] non-disclosure of [freedom of information] requests was regrettable鈥�, they say. Staff responsible for the implementation of the legislation 鈥渇ound ways to support the culture at CRU of resisting disclosure of information to climate change sceptics鈥�.
The release onto the internet of the CRU emails led to allegations of data manipulation, fraud, subversion of the peer-review process and conspiracy to withhold data from critics.
The MPs exonerate Jones and his colleagues on the more lurid charges, but admit they did not have the time to go into some other matters. 鈥淲e would have preferred to carry out a wider inquiry into the science of global warming itself,鈥� they say.
The findings could reverberate beyond the Norwich campus. The MPs say the government should review the rules for giving the public access to data 鈥渃ollected and analysed with UK public money鈥�.
