Posted April 1, 2010

Britain's House of Commons Science and Technology Committee has completed its review of the disclosure of climate data from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and determined that, while the climate science community needs to be more forthcoming with its data, it could find no reason to doubt the validity of the science presented by researchers at CRU. The committee also found that the actions taken by Phil Jones, director of CRU, in response to requests for data were common practice actions typical in the climate science community.

CRU's methods and researchers have been under intense scrutiny since November, when thousands of emails were leaked or hacked from CRU researchers that were contributing members of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC provided much of the data used by the U.S. EPA to determine its endangerment finding on GHGs and the scandal surrounding the content of the CRU emails, otherwise now known as Climategate, has been used by opponents of the EPA as proof that the science behind climate change is flawed. The committee defended the science behind the CRU data and determined that there is no reason to challenge the notion that climate change is occurring as a result of human activity. "The results from CRU agree with those drawn from other international data sets; in other words, the analyses have been repeated and the conclusions have been verified," the committee report stated. However, it also stressed that the purpose of its review was not to examine the disclosure of data, not the scientific data itself. An independent scientific assessment panel will meet in April to review the science and will make its response public when the review is completed.

While the committee found no doubt that the CRU's scientific data is accurate, it did report concern in the university's handling of information requests and concluded that the entire climate science community needs to be more transparent with its methodologies and findings. "Climate science is a matter of global importance," Phil Willis, committee chairman, said. "On the basis of the science, governments across the world will be spending trillions of pounds on climate change mitigation. The quality of 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."

CRU Director Phil Jones, who has been the target of many Climategate attacks regarding supposed pro-climate change language used in the leaked emails, was found by the committee to have received misplaced focus regarding data disclosure. "… we can sympathize with Professor Jones, who must have found it frustrating to handle requests for data that he knew-or perceived- were motivated by a desire simply to undermine his work," the committee report stated.

The committee determined that the most contentious phrases used in Jones' emails, "trick" and "hiding the decline," were colloquial terms used to mean "neat" and "discarding erroneous data" and were not part of an attempt to hide evidence that would dispute human impact on climate change. The refusal on Jones' part to share climate science data with individuals appeared to the committee to be standard procedure among climate scientists. The committee recommended that the university examine its process for complying with Freedom of Information requests.

This article originally appeared at www.industrialghg.com.