HC 387-I 

Published on 31 March 2010 

by authority of the House of Commons 

London: The Stationery Office Limited 

£0.00 

House of Commons 

Science and Technology 

Committee 

The disclosure of 

climate data from the 

Climatic Research Unit 

at the University of 

East Anglia 

Eighth Report of Session 2009–10 

Report, together with formal minutes 

Ordered by the House of Commons 

to be printed 24 March 2010 
The Science and Technology Committee 

The Science and Technology Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the 

expenditure, administration and policy of the Government Office for Science. Under 

arrangements agreed by the House on 25 June 2009 the Science and Technology Committee 

was established on 1 October 2009 with the same membership and Chairman as the former 

Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee and its proceedings were deemed to have 

been in respect of the Science and Technology Committee. 

Current membership 

Mr Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)(Chair)

Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

Mr Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

Mr Ian Cawsey (Labour, Brigg & Goole)

Mrs Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

Dr Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West & Abingdon)

Dr Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

Mr Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South) 

Dr Doug Naysmith (Labour, Bristol North West)

Dr Bob Spink (Independent, Castle Point)

Ian Stewart (Labour, Eccles) 

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

Dr Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton Kemptown)

Mr Rob Wilson (Conservative, Reading East) 

Powers 

The Committee is one of the departmental Select Committees, the powers of which are set out 

in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No.152. These are available on the 

Internet via www.parliament.uk. 

Publications 

The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of 

the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at 

http://www.parliament.uk/science. A list of reports from the Committee in this Parliament is 

included at the back of this volume. 

Committee staff 

The current staff of the Committee are: Glenn McKee (Clerk); Richard Ward (Second Clerk); Dr 

Christopher Tyler (Committee Specialist); Xameerah Malik (Committee Specialist); Andy Boyd 

(Senior Committee Assistant); Camilla Brace (Committee Assistant); Dilys Tonge (Committee 

Assistant); Melanie Lee (Committee Assistant); Jim Hudson (Committee Support Assistant); and 

Becky Jones (Media Officer). 

Contacts 

All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Science and Technology Committee, 

Committee Office, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general inquiries 

is: 020 7219 2793; the Committee’s e-mail address is: scitechcom@parliament.uk. 
The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 1

Contents 

Report Page

Summary 3

1 Introduction 5

The Climatic Research Unit at UEA 5

The disclosure of climate data 5

The aftermath 6

The independent inquiries set up by UEA 7

Our inquiry 8

Our Report 9

2 Datasets 10

Climate science 10

Context 11

Complaints and accusations 11

Transparency 12

Dishonesty 19

Perverting the peer review process 21

3 Freedom of information issues 24

Freedom of Information legislation 24

Alleged breaches of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 26

The e-mails 26

Correspondence with the Deputy Information Commissioner 28

Volume of requests 33

4 Independent inquiries 36

The Independent Climate Change Email Review 36

Terms of reference 36

The Review team 38

Transparency 40

Scientific Appraisal Panel 41

Public view of the climate science 42

Need for a single review 44

5 Conclusions 46

Conclusions and recommendations 47

Formal Minutes 52

Witnesses 55

List of written evidence 55
2 The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 

List of unprinted evidence 57

List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament 58
The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 3

Summary 

The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of 

East Anglia (UEA) in November 2009 had the potential to damage the reputation of the 

climate science and the scientists involved. 

We believe that the focus on CRU and Professor Phil Jones, Director of CRU, in particular, 

has largely been misplaced. Whilst we are concerned that the disclosed e-mails suggest a 

blunt refusal to share scientific data and methodologies with others, we can sympathise 

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. 

In the context of the sharing of data and methodologies, we consider that Professor Jones’s 

actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. It is not 

standard practice in climate science to publish the raw data and the computer code in 

academic papers. However, climate science is a matter of great importance and the quality 

of the science should be irreproachable. We therefore consider that climate scientists 

should take steps to make available all the data that support their work (including raw data) 

and full methodological workings (including the computer codes). Had both been 

available, many of the problems at UEA could have been avoided. 

We are content that the phrases such as “trick” or “hiding the decline” 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. Likewise the evidence that we have seen does not suggest 

that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not 

be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers. 

In the context of Freedom of Information (FOIA), much of the responsibility should lie 

with UEA. The disclosed e-mails appear to show a culture of non-disclosure at CRU and 

instances where information may have been deleted, to avoid disclosure. We found prima 

facie evidence to suggest that the UEA found ways to support the culture at CRU of 

resisting disclosure of information to climate change sceptics. The failure of UEA to grasp 

fully the potential damage to CRU and UEA by the non-disclosure of FOIA requests was 

regrettable. UEA needs to review its policy towards FOIA and re-assess how it can support 

academics whose expertise in this area is limited. 

The Deputy Information Commissioner has given a clear indication that a breach of the 

Freedom of Information Act 2000 may have occurred but that a prosecution was timebarred; however no investigation has been carried out. In our view it is unsatisfactory to 

leave the matter unresolved. We conclude that the matter needs to be resolved 

conclusively—either by the Independent Climate Change Email Review or by the 

Information Commissioner. 

We accept the independence of the Climate Change E-mail Review and recommend that 

the Review be open and transparent, taking oral evidence and conducting interviews in 

public wherever possible. 

On 22 March UEA announced the Scientific Appraisal Panel to be chaired by Lord 
4 Optional header 

Oxburgh. This Panel should determine whether the work of CRU has been soundly built 

and it would be premature for us to pre-judge its work. 
The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 5

1 Introduction 

1. On Friday 20 November 2009 it was reported across the world that hackers had targeted 

a “leading climate research unit”1

 and that e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s 

(UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU), one of the world’s foremost centres of climate 

science, had been published in the internet.2

 The story of the substantial file of private emails, documents and data that had been leaked helped ignite the global warming debate in 

the run up to the Copenhagen climate change conference in December 2009. As reported 

by the press, exchanges on the internet alleged that data had been manipulated or deleted, 

in order to support evidence on global warming. 

The Climatic Research Unit at UEA 

2. UEA was founded in 1963 and in 1972 UEA established CRU.3 CRU’s website describes 

the Unit as being “widely recognised as one of the world’s leading institutions concerned 

with the study of natural and anthropogenic [human caused] climate change”.4 CRU has a 

staff of around thirty research scientists and students.5

 But as we heard in oral evidence, it 

is in fact “a very small Unit [with only] three full-time members of academic staff”.6

 

3. CRU has developed a number of the datasets widely used in climate research, including 

the global temperature record used to monitor the state of the climate system, as well as 

statistical software packages and climate models. In its written submission to the inquiry 

UEA outlined CRU’s “pioneering role” in the science of understanding the world’s 

changing climate. CRU’s contributions included the compilation of a global land 

temperature record and the development of increasingly sophisticated methods by which 

to represent the average temperature of the globe and changes in that average over time.7

Professor Edward Acton, the Vice-Chancellor of UEA, indicated that he was “immensely 

proud of what they have done; [as] without them humanity would be vastly less able to 

understand climate change.”8

The disclosure of climate data 

4. In mid November 2009 it appeared that a server used by CRU had been accessed with 

160 MB of data containing more than 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 other documents being 

1 “Hackers target leading climate research unit”, BBC News website, 20 November 2009 

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8370282.stm 

2 For example: “Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute”, New York Times website, 21 November 2009 

www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?_r=4 and “Hackers leak emails, stoking climate debate”, 

Sydney Morning Herald website, 23 November 2009, www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/hackers-leakemails-stoking-climate-debate-20091123-iu6u.html 

3 Ev 17, paras 1.2 and 1.5 

4 “About the Climatic Research Unit”, CRU website, www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/ 

5 As above

6 Q 92 

7 Ev 17, paras 1.5-1.6 

8 Q 152 
6 The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 

copied.9 A UEA spokeswoman confirmed that the information was not available on a 

server that could be easily accessed and could not have been inadvertently released.10 It is 

not known exactly when the breach occurred; the RealClimate website, “a commentary site 

on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists”,11

indicated that UEA had been notified of the possible security breach on 17 November.12

The following was posted anonymously on the climate-sceptic blog, The Air Vent: 

November 17, 2009 at 9:57 pm 

We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept 

under wraps. 

We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents. 

Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it.13

From here the debate was “blown wide open”.14 The Guardian ran the story on 20 

November with the headline: “Climate sceptics claim leaked e-mails are evidence of 

collusion among scientists”.15

5. UEA issued a statement on 20 November: “This information has been obtained and 

published without our permission and we took immediate action to remove the server in 

question from operation. We are undertaking a thorough internal investigation and we 

have involved the police in this inquiry.”16 The e-mails contained technical and routine 

aspects of climate research, including data analysis and details of scientific conferences. 

The controversy has focused on a small number of e-mails, particularly those sent to, or 

written by, climatologist Professor Phil Jones, the Director of CRU. 

The aftermath 

6. Condemnation of alleged malpractices found within the leaked CRU e-mails was quickly 

disseminated on the internet. Contributors to climate change debate websites and written 

submissions to us claimed that these e-mails showed a deliberate and systematic attempt by 

leading climate scientists to manipulate climate data, arbitrarily adjusting and “cherrypicking” data that supported their global warming claims and deleting adverse data that 

questioned their theories.17 It was alleged that UEA may not have complied with the 

requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, that inappropriate statistical 

methods and defective computer programmes may have been used to analyse data and that 

9 RealClimate website archive, November 2009, www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack 

10 “Scotland Yard call in to probe climate data leak from UEA in Norwich”, Norwich Evening News, 1 December 2009 

11 RealClimate website ‘about’ page, www.realclimate.org 

12 RealClimate website archive, November 2009, www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack; the 

data may have been downloaded on to the RealClimate—see paragraph 12. 

13 The Air Vent website, November 2009 archive, noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/page/3/ 

14 As above

15 “Climate sceptics claim leaked emails are evidence of collusion among scientists”, The Guardian, 20 November 2009 

16 “Sceptics publish climate e-mails ‘stolen from East Anglia University’”, The Times, 21 November 2009 

17 For examples see Ev 85 [Roger Helmer MEP], Ev 92 [Godfrey Bloom MEP], and Ev 144 [Stephen McIntyre] 
The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 7

CRU may have attempted to abuse the process of peer review to prevent the publication of 

research papers with conflicting opinions about climate change.18 

7. In a statement released on 24 November, Professor Trevor Davies, UEA pro-ViceChancellor with responsibility for research, rejected calls for Professor Jones’s resignation: 

“We see no reason for Professor Jones to resign and, indeed, we would not accept his 

resignation. He is a valued and important scientist.”19 He also contested several of the 

claims of malpractice: “It is well known within the scientific community and particularly 

those who are sceptical of climate change that over 95% of the raw station data has been 

accessible through the Global Historical Climatology Network for several years. We are 

quite clearly not hiding information which seems to be the speculation on some blogs and 

by some media commentators”. He added: 

There is nothing in the stolen material which indicates that peer-reviewed 

publications by CRU, and others, on the nature of global warming and related 

climate change are not of the highest-quality of scientific investigation and 

interpretation. CRU’s peer-reviewed publications are consistent with, and have 

contributed to, the overwhelming scientific consensus that the climate is being 

strongly influenced by human activity.20

8. On 1 December, Professor Jones announced that he would step aside from the Director’s 

role during the course of the independent review.21

The independent inquiries set up by UEA 

9. On 3 December UEA announced that an independent review—the Independent Climate 

Change Email Review—into the allegations made against CRU would be carried out by Sir 

Muir Russell.22 Professor Acton explained in a letter to us why Sir Muir was chosen to head 

the review: 

Sir Muir is extremely experienced in public life, has an understanding of the conduct 

of universities and research, and is entirely independent of any association with this 

University and with the climate change debate.23

10. Alongside the Independent Climate Change E-Mails Review, UEA decided on a 

separate scientific assessment of CRU’s key scientific publications; an external reappraisal 

of the science itself. The Royal Society agreed to assist UEA in identifying assessors with 

the requisite experience, standing and independence.24 UEA announced on 22 March that 

Lord Oxburgh FRS would “chair an independent Scientific Assessment Panel to examine 

18 For examples see Ev 90 [Phillip Bratby]; Ev 115 [David Holland], para 2; Ev 144 [Stephen McIntyre]; Ev 194 [Peabody 

Energy Company], para 24. 

19 “Climate scientist at centre of leaked email row dismisses conspiracy claims”, The Guardian, 24 November 2009 

20 UEA, “CRU update 2”, 24 November 2009, www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/CRUupdate 

21 UEA, “CRU update 3”, 1 December 2009, www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/CRUupdate 

22 “Sir Muir Russell to head the Independent Review into the allegations against the Climatic Research Unit (CRU)”, 

UEA Press Release, 3 December 2009, www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/dec/CRUreview 

23 Ev 16 

24 Ev 18, para 2.3 
8 The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 

important elements of the published science of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the 

University of East Anglia”.25

Our inquiry 

11. We were concerned by the press reports and on 1 December 2009 the Chair of the 

Committee wrote to the Vice-Chancellor of UEA. The letter explained that we took a close 

interest in academic integrity and the systems in place to ensure the quality of evidence 

from research and evidence-based policy making. The letter requested a note on the recent 

events setting out: 

a) what had taken place; 

b) the steps that had been taken to investigate the allegations and to test the integrity of 

the data held and used by CRU; 

c) how CRU justified its commitment to academic transparency; and 

d) how the Vice-Chancellor proposed to restore confidence in CRU and its handling of 

data. 

We also asked for an assurance that none of the data referred to in the e-mails that had 

been publicised had been destroyed.26

12. UEA replied on 10 December 2009. It explained that “a significant amount of material 

including emails and documents appears to have been accessed illegally from a back-up 

server in CRU and downloaded in whole, or possibly in part, on to the RealClimate 

website.”27 This incident was the subject of a police enquiry and the Norfolk Constabulary 

investigation was expected to take some time. UEA was keen to stress that this “episode is 

being treated very seriously” and announced that it had set up the independent inquiry, 

headed by Sir Muir Russell, to investigate the allegations against CRU. UEA said that “none 

of the adjusted station data referred to in the emails that have been published has been 

destroyed.”28

13. In the light of the gravity of the allegations against CRU, the growing weight of 

damaging press coverage, on-going concerns about the deletion of data and the serious 

implications for UK science we decided to hold an inquiry into the disclosure of the data at 

CRU. On 22 January 2010 we therefore announced the inquiry inviting submissions on 

three key issues: 

• What were the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research? 

• Were the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 

December 2009 by UEA adequate? 

25 “CRU Scientific Assessment Panel announced”, UEA Press Release, 22 March 2010, 

www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAPannounce 

26 House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Press Notice 04, 7 December 2009, Session 2009–10 

27 Ev 16 

28 Ev 17 
The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 9

• How independent were the other two international data sets (see paragraph 23)? 

14. If there had been more time available before the end of this Parliament we would have 

preferred to carry out a wider inquiry into the science of global warming itself. In response 

to enquiries we issued a statement on 1 February making it clear that the inquiry would 

focus on the terms of reference announced on 22 January and that this was not an inquiry 

into global warming.29

15. We set a deadline of 10 February for the submission of memoranda and we have 

received 58 submissions, not including supplementary memoranda. We held one oral 

evidence session on 1 March, when we took evidence from five panels: 

a) Rt Hon Lord Lawson of Blaby, Chairman, and Dr Benny Peiser, Director, Global 

Warming Policy Foundation; 

b) Richard Thomas CBE, former Information Commissioner; 

c) Professor Edward Acton, Vice-Chancellor, UEA and Professor Phil Jones, Director of 

CRU; 

d) Sir Muir Russell, Head of the Independent Climate Change E-Mails Review; and 

e) 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. 

16. We would like to thank everyone who contributed to the inquiry through written 

submissions or oral evidence. We also received unsolicited copies of a number of books 

challenging anthropogenic global warming and reviewing events at CRU and the disclosed 

e-mails.30

Our Report 

17. In the time left before the end of this Parliament we will not be able to cover all the 

issues raised by the events at UEA, nor cover all the ground that would be covered by the 

Independent Climate Change Email Review and the Scientific Appraisal Panel. We have 

therefore concentrated on what we believe to be key issues. Of central concern is the 

accuracy and availability of CRU’s data, datasets and computer programming, which we 

address in Chapter 2 of this Report; and related to the data and methodology is the 

question of access, or the withholding of access, under the Freedom of Information Act 

2000 which we cover in Chapter 3. Finally, in Chapter 4 we comment on the independent 

reviews that UEA has announced. 

29 House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Press Notice 11, 1 February 2010, Session 2009–10 

30 The Committee received the following books: 

Christopher Booker, The Real Global Warming Disaster, Continuum, 2009 

A.W. Montford, The Hockey Stick Illusion, Stacey International, 2010 

Steven Mosher and Tom Fuller, Climategate, St Matthew Publishing, 2010 

Ian Plimer, Heaven and Earth, Quartet Books Limited, 2009 
10 The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 

2 Datasets 

Climate science 

18. Climate is distinct from weather: it is the average of weather conditions over a number 

of years. Climatologists study climates in different parts of the world and for the Earth as a 

whole. CRU, according to its website: “has developed a number of the data sets widely used 

in climate research, including the global temperature record used to monitor the state of 

the climate system, as well as statistical software packages and climate models”.31

19. The process of calculating the Earth’s average global temperatures (past, present and 

future) is complicated and lengthy. Data from thousands of weather stations all around the 

world, on land and at sea, must be collected, checked for quality, adjusted for 

inconsistencies and error margins, and then mapped onto a series of grids on the Earth’s 

surface. The methods, results and conclusions are then presented to the academic world, 

first by passing the peer review process prior to publication, and second, after presentation, 

the scrutiny of the wider academic community. 

20. Climate science, like any other science, uses the scientific method to make its 

assessments of past and present climate and predictions about the future climate. The key 

characteristics of the scientific method can be described as: characterisations, hypotheses, 

predictions, and experiments. 

• Characterisations: consideration of a problem, and examination of whether or not an 

explanation exists for it. 

• Hypotheses: if no such explanation exists, a new explanation is stated. 

• Predictions: what consequences follow from a new explanation? 

• Experiments: is the outcome consistent with the predicted consequences? 

Each of these is subject to peer review prior to the formal sharing of knowledge through 

publication. Through peer review scientists allow their views and methods to be critically 

appraised expertly and externally. 

• Replication and verification 

To have the results and conclusions survive criticism or scepticism and be part of the 

accepted canon of scientific knowledge, most experiments will have to be demonstrably 

replicable (by the same group) to pass peer review and will often need to be verified by 

other independent researchers taking similar approaches. 

21. Therefore climatologists are, like other scientists, required to test their theories—such 

as global warming and the causes of warming—against observational data. They must also 

replicate and verify their experiments, by holding independent datasets and conducting 

independent analyses of these datasets, and by publishing their full methods and results for 

31 www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about 
The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 11

scrutiny. Ultimately, these ideas are put up to the threat of falsification by other scientists 

working in the field. 

22. In this Chapter we discuss some aspects of this process. 

Context 

23. There are three main international climate datasets, which have been built up from 

direct temperature measurements on land and sea at weather stations all around the world: 

a) the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) of the National Oceanographic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Asheville, North Carolina, USA; 

b) the Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), part of the National Aeronautic and 

Space Administration (NASA) in New York, USA; and 

c) CRUTEM3, at CRU, UEA.32

24. In addition, there are two others, one in Russia and one in Japan, that use similar 

methods.33 There are also two that use satellite observations, by the University of Alabama 

at Huntsville and by Remote Sensing Systems, California.34

25. Professor Jones, commenting on the different climate research groups around the 

world in the UK, US, Russia and Japan,35 told us that: 

we are all working independently so we may be using a lot of common data but the 

way of going from the raw data to a derived product of gridded temperatures and 

then the average for the hemisphere and the globe is totally independent between the 

different groups.36

26. What sets the CRU dataset apart is its comprehensiveness: 

The CRU dataset, which forms the land surface component of the HadCRUT global 

temperature record, was compiled with the aim of comprehensiveness. The majority 

of the data in it are derived from the same freely-available raw data sets used by 

NOAA and NASA. However, it also includes data derived from station data that 

were obtained directly from countries, institutions and scientists on the 

understanding that they would not be passed on.37

Complaints and accusations 

27. The complaints and accusations made against CRU in relation to the scientific process 

come under two broad headings. The first is transparency: that CRU failed to abide by best 

32 Ev 21, para 4.2 

33 Q 78 

34 Ev 104 [D.R. Keiller], para 2 

35 Q 79 

36 Q 80 

37 Ev 64 [John Beddington and Julia Slingo] 
12 The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 

scientific practice by refusing to share its raw data and detailed methods. The second is 

honesty: that CRU has deliberately misrepresented the data, in order to produce results 

that fit its preconceived views about the anthropogenic warming of the climate. We take 

each of these complaints and accusations in turn. 

Transparency 

Raw data 

28. Warwick Hughes, a “freelance earth scientist from Australia”,38 had asked Professor 

Jones for CRU’s raw data. He received the following reply: 

I should warn you that some data we have we are not supposed [to] pass on to 

others. We can pass on the gridded data—which we do. Even if WMO [World 

Meteorological Organization] agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or 

so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when 

your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.39

29. On the face of it, this looks like an unreasonable response to a reasonable request. As 

Lord Lawson put it: “Ask any decent scientist and they will say the keystone for integrity in 

scientific research is full and transparent disclosure of data and methods”.40 However, 

Professor Jones, while confessing that he has sent some “awful” e-mails,41 defended his 

position. 

30. First, in answer to the question of whether the raw data are accessible and verifiable, 

Professor Jones told us that: 

The simple answer is yes, most of the same basic data are available in the United 

States in something called the Global Historical Climatology Network. They have 

been downloadable there for a number of years so people have been able to take the 

data, do whatever method of assessment of the quality of the data and derive their 

own gridded product and compare that with other workers.42

31. In addition, of course, there are the sources of the data, the weather stations, to which 

any individual is free to go and collect the data in the same way that CRU did. This is 

feasible because the list of stations that CRU used was published in 2008.43

32. Even if CRU had wanted to, it would have been unable to publish all of these data 

because, as Professor Acton explained, some of the data are bound by commercial 

agreements with different national meteorological organisations: 

38 www.warwickhughes.com 

39 Ev 158, Appendix 1 

40 Q 9 

41 Q 103 

42 Q 78 

43 Q 98 
The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 13

Unfortunately, several of these countries impose conditions and say you are not 

allowed to pass [on the data]. Seven countries have said “No, you cannot”, half the 

countries have not yet answered, Canada and Poland are amongst those who have 

said, “No you cannot publish it” and also Sweden. Russia is very hesitant. We are 

under a commercial promise, as it were, not to; we are longing to publish it because 

what science needs is the most openness.44

(The issue with Sweden has since been resolved. The Swedish Meteorological and 

Hydrological Institute gave permission for CRU to publish its Swedish data on the UEA 

website on 8 March 2010.45) 

33. Second, as UEA explained in its submission, it is: 

sometimes necessary to adjust temperature data because changes in station location, 

instrument or observation time, or in the methods used to calculate monthly average 

temperatures can introduce false trends. These have to be removed or adjusted, or 

else the overall series of values will be incorrect. In the early 1980s, CRU 

painstakingly examined the long-term homogeneity of each station temperature 

series which it acquired. As a result, data were adjusted for about 11% of the sites, 

that is approximately 314 sites out of a then-total of some 3,276. This was in 

complete accordance with standard practice, and all adjustments were documented.46

34. Professor Jones added, when he gave oral evidence: 

It is all documented [...] what [adjustments we made to the data] in the 1980s and 

since then we have obviously added more station data as more has become available, 

as countries have digitised more data; we have added that in and we have reported 

on that in our peer review publications in 2003 and 2006.47

35. These kinds of adjustments to raw data take a lot of time. That is why, in the words of 

Professor Jones, “Most scientists do not want to deal with the raw station data, they would 

rather deal with a derived product”.48

36. A third point was made by Professor Acton that CRU should not be under any 

obligation to provide raw data: 

May I also point out that it is not a national archive, it is not a library, it is a research 

unit. It has no special duty to conserve and its data is the copy of data provided by 

over 150 countries, whose national meteorological stations turn the data into the 

average for a month.49

44 Q 94 

45 Ev 39, para B 

46 Ev 18, para 3.4 

47 Q 81 

48 Q 107 

49 Q 92 
14 The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 

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”.50 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”.51 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.52 In contrast, NASA has been able to 

make all its raw data available as well as its programmes.53

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.54

There have been criticisms that Professor Jones and colleagues have not shared their 

methodologies. Andrew Montford, author of The Hockey Stick Illusion,

55 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 
The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 15

The scientific method demands that findings be subject to testing and verification by 

others. The refusal of CRU scientists to release information to those who they felt 

might question or threaten their findings have led many to conclude that the CRU’s 

work is not trustworthy.56

41. Professor Jones contested these claims. According to him, “The methods are published 

in the scientific papers; they are relatively simple and there is nothing that is rocket science 

in them”.57 He also noted: “We have made all the adjustments we have made to the data 

available in these reports58; they are 25 years old now”.59 He added that the programme that 

produced the global temperature average had been available from the Met Office since 

December 2009.60

42. On this basis, he argued, it was unnecessary to provide the exact codes that he used to 

produce the CRUTEM3 chart. The Met Office had released its code and it produced 

exactly the same result.61

43. In answer to the charge that the computer codes that were stolen from CRU’s computer 

network were defective,62 Professor Jones pointed out that: 

Those codes are from a much earlier time, they are from the period about 2000 to 

2004. [They] do not relate to the production of the global and hemispheric 

temperature series. They are nothing to do with that, they are to do with a different 

project [...] that was funded by the British Atmospheric Data Centre, which is run by 

NERC, and that was to produce more gridded temperature data and precipitation 

data and other variables. A lot of that has been released on a Dutch website and also 

the BADC website.63

44. CRU’s alleged refusal to disclose its assumptions and methodologies gave credence to 

the view that exposure to “independent scrutiny would have undermined the AGW 

[anthropogenic global warming] hypothesis”.64 However, the failure to publish the 

computer code for CRUTEM3 left CRU vulnerable when concerns emerged that other 

codes it used had faults. John Graham-Cumming, a professional computer programmer, 

told us that: 

 

55 Andrew Montford, The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the corruption of science, Stacey International, 2010 

56 Ev 159, para 4 

57 Q 92 

58 Raymond Bradley, Mick Kelly, Phil Jones and others, A Climatic Data Bank for Northern Hemisphere Land Areas, 

1851-1980, US DoE, Technical Report TRO17, 1985, p 335; Phil Jones, Sarah Raper, Ben Santer, and others, A Grid 

Point Surface Air Temperature Data Set for the Northern Hemisphere, DoE Technical Report No. TR022, US 

Department of Energy, 1985, p 251; Phil Jones, Sarah Raper, Claire Goodess, and others, A Grid Point Surface Air 

Temperature Data Set for the Southern Hemisphere, 1851-1984, DoE Technical Report No. TR027, US Department of 

Energy, 1986, 73 

59 Q 97 

60 As above

61 Qq 139-42 

62 Ev 32, Q 137; Ev 196 [John Graham-Cumming] 

63 Qq 137-38 

64 Ev 94 [Clive Menzies], para 1.5 
16 The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 

the organization writing the [other] code did not adhere to standards one might find 

in professional software engineering. The code had easily identified bugs, no visible 

test mechanism, was not apparently under version control and was poorly 

documented. It would not be surprising to find that other code written at the same 

organization was of similar quality. And given that I subsequently found a bug in the 

actual CRUTEM3 code only reinforces my opinion.65

45. The conspiracy claims were fuelled by CRU’s refusal to share the most detailed aspects 

of its methodologies, for example, the computer codes for producing global temperature 

averages. We note that the research passed the peer review process of some highly 

reputable journals. However, we note that CRU could have been more open at that time 

in providing the detailed methodological working on its website. We recommend that 

all publicly funded research groups consider whether they are being as open as they can 

be, and ought to be, with the details of their methodologies.

Repeatability and verification 

46. These complaints and concerns surrounding transparency cut to the heart of the 

scientific process. It has been argued that without access to the raw data and detailed 

methodology it is not possible to check the results of CRU’s work. The Institute of Physics 

pointed out that: 

Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and 

may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different 

choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This 

possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further 

information.66

47. This has substance if one considers CRU’s work in isolation. But science is more than 

individual researchers or research groups. One should put research in context and ask the 

question: what would one hope to find by double checking the processing of the raw data? 

If this were the only dataset in existence, and Professor Jones’s team had been the only 

team in the world to analyse it, then it might make sense to double check independently 

the processing of the raw data and the methods. But there are other datasets and other 

analyses that have been carried out as Professor Jones explained: 

There are two groups in America that we [CRU] compare with and there are also 

two additional groups, one in Russia and one in Japan, that also produce similar 

records to ourselves and they all show pretty much the same sort of course of 

instrumental temperature change since the nineteenth century compared to today.67

[...] we are all working independently so we may be using a lot of common data but 

the way of going from the raw data to a derived product of gridded temperatures and 

65 Ev 196 

66 Ev 167, para 4 

67 Q 78 
The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 17

then the average for the hemisphere and the globe is totally independent between the 

different groups.68

48. In its memorandum UEA explained the differences between the methodologies used by 

three basic datasets for land areas of the world, NOAA, NASA and CRU/UEA: 

All these datasets rely on primary observations recorded by NMSs [National 

Meteorological Services] across the globe.69

GISS[70] and NCDC[71] each use at least 7,200 stations. CRUTEM3 uses fewer. In 

CRUTEM3, each monthly temperature value is expressed as a departure from the 

average for the base period 1961–90. This “anomaly method” of expressing 

temperature records demands an adequate amount of data for the base period; this 

limitation reduces the number of stations used by CRUTEM3 to 4,348 (from the 

dataset total of 5,121). The latest NCDC analysis [...] has now moved to the “anomaly 

method” though with different refinements from those of CRU.72

NCDC and GISS use different approaches to the problem of “absolute temperature” 

from those of CRUTEM3. The homogeneity procedures undertaken by GISS and 

NCDC are completely different from those adopted for CRUTEM3. NCDC has an 

automated adjustment procedure [...], whilst GISS additionally makes allowances for 

urbanization effects at some stations.73

49. In our call for evidence we asked for submissions on the question of how independent 

the other international data sets are. We have established to the extent that a limited 

inquiry of this nature can, that the NCDC/NOAA and GISS/NASA data sets measuring 

temperature changes on land and at sea have arrived at similar conclusions using similar 

data to that used by CRU, but using independently devised methodologies. We have 

further identified that there are two other data sets (University of Alabama and Remote 

Sensing Systems), using satellite observations that use entirely different data than that used 

by CRU. These also confirm the findings of the CRU work. We therefore conclude that 

there is independent verification, through the use of other methodologies and other 

sources of data, of the results and conclusions of the Climate Research Unit at the 

University of East Anglia.

50. The fact that all the datasets show broadly the same sort of course of instrumental 

temperature change since the nineteenth century compared to today was why Professor 

John Beddington, the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, had the confidence to say that 

68 Q 80 

69 Ev 21, para 4.3 

70 Dataset held by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS, USA) part of the National Aeronautic and Space 

Administration (NASA) 

71 Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) dataset held by National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), the National 

Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA, USA) 

72 Ev 21, para 4.4 

73 Ev 21, para 4.5 
18 The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 

human induced global warming was, in terms of the evidence to support that hypothesis, 

“unchallengeable”:74

I think in terms of datasets, of the way in which data is analysed, there will always be 

some degree of uncertainty but when you get a series of fundamentally different 

analyses on the basic data and they come up with similar conclusions, you get a [...] 

great deal of certainty coming out of it.75

51. Even if the data that CRU used were not publicly available—which they mostly 

are—or the methods not published—which they have been—its published results would 

still be credible: 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.

52. That is probably part of why it has not been practice in the climate science community 

to publish all the data and computer codes with the academic papers. We got to the crux of 

the issue during an interesting exchange with Professor Jones: 

Graham Stringer: You are saying that every paper that you have produced, the 

computer programmes, the weather stations, all the information, the codes, have 

been available to scientists so that they could test out how good your work was. Is 

that the case on all the papers you have produced? 

Professor Jones: That is not the case. 

Graham Stringer: Why is it not? 

Professor Jones: Because it has not been standard practice to do that. 

Graham Stringer: That takes me back to the original point, that if it is not standard 

practice how can the science progress? 

Professor Jones: Maybe it should be standard practice but it is not standard practice 

across the subject.76

53. Another reason why data and the codes were not published may be that norms for 

publication evolved in a period when the journals were only published in hard copy. In 

such circumstances it is understandable why an editor would not want to publish raw 

climate data (extremely long lists of numbers) and code for the computer programmes that 

analyse the data (which run to hundreds of thousands of lines of code). However, in the age 

of the internet, these kinds of products can be made available more easily, and we are 

minded to agree with Professor Jones observation on this point that: “Maybe it should be 

standard practice”.77 

74 Q 191 

75 Qq 191–92 

76 Qq 100–02 

77 Q 102 
The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 19

54. It is not standard practice in climate science and many other fields to publish the 

raw data and the computer code in academic papers. We think that this is problematic 

because climate science is a matter of global importance and of public interest, and 

therefore the quality and transparency of the science should be irreproachable. We 

therefore consider that climate scientists should take steps to make available all the data 

used to generate their published work, including raw data; and it should also be made 

clear and referenced where data has been used but, because of commercial or national 

security reasons is not available. Scientists are also, under Freedom of Information laws 

and under the rules of normal scientific conduct, entitled to withhold data which is due 

to be published under the peer-review process.78 In addition, scientists should take steps 

to make available in full their methodological workings, including the computer codes. 

Data and methodological workings should be provided via the internet. There should 

be enough information published to allow verification.

Dishonesty 

55. Of all the e-mails released, one dated 16 November 1999 has caused particular concern: 

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for 

the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the 

decline.79

56. The word “trick” and the phrase “hide the decline” have been taken by some to 

demonstrate intent on the part of Professor Jones to “falsify data” and to “exaggerate 

warming”.80

“Trick” 

57. In his submission, Peter Taylor, author of Chill,

81 states that: 

The tree ring data did not match the model expectation (ie the ‘hockey stick’ pattern 

of a sudden rise at the end of the period). Rather than admit this, the team-workers 

discuss using Michael Mann’s ‘trick’ of replacing the offending tree-ring data and 

using instrumental data in its place in a spliced graph.82 

58. UEA interpreted the use of the word “trick” differently: 

as for the (now notorious) word ‘trick’, so deeply appealing to the media, this has 

been richly misinterpreted and quoted out of context. It was used in an informal 

email, discussing the difficulties of statistical presentation. It does not mean a ‘ruse’ 

or method of deception. In context it is obvious that it is used in the informal sense 

78 See paragraph 78 and following; section 22 of the FOIA provides an exemption from disclosure where the requested 

information is intended for future (but imminent) publication. 

79 E-mail from Phil Jones to Ray Bradley, 16 November 1999 

80 Ev 93 [Godfrey Bloom MEP], para 4 

81 Peter Taylor, Chill, A Reassessment of Global Warming Theory: Does Climate Change Mean the World is Cooling, and 

If So What Should We Do About It?, Clairview Books, 2009 

82 Ev 188, para 22 
20 The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 

of ‘the best way of doing something’. In this case it was ‘the trick or knack’ of 

constructing a statistical illustration which would combine the most reliable proxy 

and instrumental evidence of temperature trends.83

59. These interpretations of the colloquial meaning of “trick” have been accepted by even 

the staunchest of critics: 

Lord Lawson of Blaby: The sinister thing is not the word ‘trick’. In their [UEA’s] 

own evidence they say that what they mean by ‘trick’ is the best way of doing 

something. 

Chairman: You accept that? 

Lord Lawson of Blaby: I accept that.84

60. Critics of CRU have suggested that Professor Jones’s use of the word “trick” is 

evidence that he was part of a conspiracy to hide evidence that did not fit his view that 

recent global warming is predominately caused by human activity. The balance of 

evidence patently fails to support this view. It appears to be a colloquialism for a “neat” 

method of handling data.

“Hide the decline” 

61. Lord Lawson did, however, describe CRU’s treatment of the data as “reprehensible”,85

because, in his view, Professor Jones deliberately hid data that demonstrated a decline in 

temperatures.86

62. The data that he believed to be “hidden” are a set of tree ring data that disagree with 

other data sources regarding temperature trends. Lord Lawson said: “when the proxy series 

[...] departed from the measured temperature series, a normal person will say maybe that 

means the proxy series is not all that reliable”.87 In that context he made two specific 

claims: 

• that the tree ring data were flawed because “for a long period before 1421 they relied on 

one single pine tree”;88 and 

• that the divergence problem was not just for data after the 1960s, “it is not a good fit in 

the latter half of the nineteenth century either”.89

63. It is outside the remit of the terms of reference of this inquiry to make a detailed 

assessment of the science, but it is worth noting that Professor Jones had a very different 

perspective. On the first point, he commented: 

83 Ev 19, para 3.5.6 

84 Qq 25–26 

85 Q 26 

86 Qq 26–28 

87 Q 26 

88 As above

89 Q 28 
The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 21

That particular reconstruction went back to 1400, or just after 1400, and that is 

because there are insufficient trees to go back before that, there are more than just 

one. We have criteria to determine how far you can go back in terms of the number 

of trees you have at a certain number of sites.90

64. On the second point, he told us: 

One of the curves was based on tree ring data which showed a very good relationship 

between the tree rings and the temperature from the latter part of the nineteenth 

century through to 1960, and after that there was a divergence where the trees did 

not go up as much as the real temperatures had.91

65. Professor Jones has published on this issue on several occasions, including a 1998 

Nature paper92 and subsequent papers.93 He contested the view that he was trying to hide 

the decline in the sense that he was trying to pretend that these data did not exist and 

thereby exaggerate global warming: “We do not accept it was hidden because it was 

discussed in a paper[94] the year before and we have discussed it in every paper we have 

written on tree rings and climate”.95 Rather, what was meant by “hide the decline” was 

remove the effects of data known to be problematic in the sense that the data were known 

to be misleading. UEA made it clear in its written submission that: 

CRU never sought to disguise this specific type of tree-ring “decline or divergence”. 

On the contrary, CRU has published a number of pioneering articles that illustrate, 

suggest reasons for, and discuss the implications of this interesting phenomenon.96

66. Critics of CRU have suggested that Professor Jones’s use of the words “hide the 

decline” is evidence that he was part of a conspiracy to hide evidence that did not fit his 

view that recent global warming is predominantly caused by human activity. That he 

has published papers—including a paper in Nature—dealing with this aspect of the 

science clearly refutes this allegation. In our view, it was shorthand for the practice of 

discarding data known to be erroneous. We expect that this is a matter the Scientific 

Appraisal Panel will address.

Perverting the peer review process 

67. The main allegations on the suppression or distortion of others’ findings concern the 

role of CRU in the operation of the peer review process. It has been alleged that scientists at 

CRU abused the peer review process to prevent those with dissenting views on climate 

change the opportunity in getting papers published. There are three key accusations. First, 

90 Q 125 

91 Q 122 

92 Q 122; Keith Briffa and others, “Reduced sensitivity of recent tree-growth to temperature at high northern 

latitudes”, Nature, vol 391 (1998), pp 678-82 

93 For example: Edward Cook, Paul Krusic and Phil Jones, “Dendroclimatic signals in long tree-ring chronologies from 

the Himalayas of Nepal”, International Journal of Climatology, Vol 23 (2003), pp 707-32 

94 Keith Briffa and others, “Trees tell of past climates: but are they speaking less clearly today?”, Philosophical 

Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences, vol 353 (1998), pp 65-73 

95 Q 124 

96 Ev 19, para 3.5.5 
22 The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 

David Holland, an author of several FOIA requests that were mentioned in the leaked emails, claimed that climate scientists at CRU corrupted the IPCC process: 

The emails show that a group of influential climate scientists colluded to subvert the 

peer-review process of the IPCC and science journals, and thereby delay or prevent 

the publication and assessment of research by scientists who disagreed with the 

group’s conclusions about global warming. They manufactured pre-determined 

conclusions through the corruption of the IPCC process and deleted procedural and 

other information hoping to avoid its disclosure under freedom-of-information 

requests.97

68. In one e-mail, Professor Jones appeared to suggest that he and another scientist would 

deliberately try to “keep out” two papers from the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report.98

69. The second is that climate scientists tried to suppress a paper on research fraud. As Dr 

Benny Peiser, Director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, put it: 

The CRU e-mails under investigation suggest that climate scientists (not only at 

CRU but also elsewhere) have actively sought to prevent a paper on alleged research 

fraud from being published in violation of principles of academic integrity.99

70. The third allegation is made by Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, a former peer 

reviewer for the IPCC, editor of the journal, Energy & Environment, and Reader Emeritus 

97 Ev 115, para 2 

98 www.eastangliaemails.com 

99 Ev 164, para 2 

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> 

Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL 

Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004 

Mike, 

Only have it in the pdf form. FYI ONLY - don’t pass on. Relevant paras are the last 

2 in section 4 on p13. As I said it is worded carefully due to Adrian knowing Eugenia for years. 

He knows the’re wrong, but he succumbed to her almost pleading with him to tone it down as 

it might affect her proposals in the future ! 

I didn’t say any of this, so be careful how you use it - if at all. Keep quiet also that you have the 

pdf. The attachment is a very good paper - I’ve been pushing Adrian over the last weeks to get 

it submitted to JGR or J. Climate. The main results are great for CRU and also for ERA-40. The 

basic message is clear - you have to put enough surface and sonde obs into a model to produce 

Reanalyses. The jumps when the data input change stand out so clearly. NCEP does many odd 

things also around sea ice and over snow and ice. The other paper by MM is just garbage - as 

you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad 

Finn as well - frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC 

report. Kevin and I will keep Them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peerreview literature is ! 
The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 23

at Hull University, who stated in her memorandum that her journal became the focus of 

attacks from CRU scientists: 

As editor of a journal which remained open to scientists who challenged the 

orthodoxy, I became the target of a number of CRU manoeuvres. The hacked emails 

revealed attempts to manipulate peer review to E&E’s disadvantage, and showed that 

libel threats were considered against its editorial team. Dr Jones even tried to put 

pressure on my university department. The emailers expressed anger over my 

publication of several papers that questioned the ‘hockey stick’ graph and the 

reliability of CRU temperature data. The desire to control the peer review process in 

their favour is expressed several times. [...] CRU clearly disliked my journal and 

believed that “good” climate scientists do not read it.100

71. When we asked Professor Jones about these accusations, he contested each of them. 

• On the claim that he tried to keep two papers out of the IPCC report, he explained that 

the papers were already published and that “I was just commenting that I did not think 

those papers were very good”.101

• On the claim by he tried to suppress papers that alleged research fraud, he told us: 

Dr Benny Peiser [...] was editing a series of papers in Energy & Environment. He 

asked me to comment on a particular paper and I sent him some views back that I 

did not think the paper was very good. It was not a formal review, he was just asking 

me for my views.102

• On the claims made by Dr Boehmer-Christiansen, he noted: “I was sending an email to 

the head of department about a complaint that she had made about me to the UK 

Climate Impacts Programme, so I was just responding there”.103

72. In summary, Professor Jones argued: 

I do not think there is anything in those emails that really supports any view that I or 

CRU have been trying to pervert the peer review process in any way. I have just been 

giving my views on specific papers.104

73. The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to 

subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making 

informal comments on academic papers. The Independent Climate Change Email 

Review should look in detail at all of these claims.

100 Ev 125, paras 4.1–4.3 

101 Q 154 

102 Q 157 

103 As above

104 Q 159 
24 The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 

3 Freedom of information issues 

74. We are not a tribunal reviewing whether breaches of the Freedom of Information Act 

2000 (FOIA) have taken place but see as our role in this inquiry as considering whether: 

(a) the arrangements for examining whether CRU breached FOIA are adequate; 

(b) whether the six-month time limit on the initiation of a prosecution where a 

public authority acts so as to prevent intentionally the disclosure of requested 

information needs to be revised; and 

(c) whether UEA ensured that CRU was able to meet the requirements of the 

legislation when it received FOIA requests. 

Freedom of Information legislation 

75. The FOIA creating new rights of access to information came into operation on 1 

January 2005. CRU, as part of UEA, is classed as a “public authority” for the purposes of 

the FOIA. In his submission Richard Thomas, who was Information Commissioner from 

2002 until June 2009, explained the application of the FOIA to scientific data held by UK 

universities: 

the public must be satisfied that publicly-funded universities, as with any other 

public authority in receipt of public funding, are properly accountable, adopt systems 

of good governance and can inspire public trust and confidence in their work and 

operations [...] The fact that the FOIA requests relate to complex scientific data does 

not detract from this proposition or excuse non-compliance.105

76. When he gave oral evidence, we asked Mr Thomas if the legislation drew a distinction 

between, on the one hand, scientific data and modelling and, on the other hand, 

administrative records. He replied: 

the broad answer [...] is no [...] First of all, the legislation applies to information held 

by the public authority, and information is not elaborated in that sense. [...] It is not 

ownership. The legislation uses the word “held”, and in the Environmental 

Information Regulations [EIR] that phrase “held” is slightly elaborated. If I can quote 

the regulation for you there, “It is held by a public authority if the information: (a) is 

in the authority’s possession and has been produced or received by the authority, or 

(b) is held by another person on behalf of the authority.” So that is an elaboration of 

the concept of “held”. It is not ownership.106

77. Mr Thomas considered that the issues in this case which were most relevant to the 

information law appeared to be: 

(a) the relevance and impact of the information laws on scientific and academic 

research conducted within universities; 

105 Ev 8, para 3.2 

106 Qq 59–60 
The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 25

(b) the adequacy of section 77 of FOIA to deal with suggestions that CRU 

researchers deleted information, not in the course of normal work, but to 

frustrate FOIA/EIR107 requests; 

(c) the handling of a large number of FOIA/EIR requests by UEA relating 

especially to climate change research which (within CRU) it “held”; and 

(d) whether this case illustrates that there is scope to extend the “proactive” 

disclosure provisions of FOIA as they relate to universities.108

78. Parliament has created a presumption in favour of disclosure but there are 

exclusions.109 Mr Thomas explained: 

There are over 20 exemptions to the fundamental duty to disclose requested 

information in FOIA.[...] Eight of the main exemptions are absolute and 16 are 

qualified. Qualified means that there is a “public interest override,” which means 

that, even where the exemption applies, the public interest considerations must be 

considered. In formal terms, there must still be disclosure—even though the 

qualified exemption applies—unless the public interest in the exemption outweighs 

the public interest in disclosure. 

Mr Thomas added that: 

The exemptions are similar to those found in other Freedom of Information laws in 

force in the world. I am not aware which exemptions were considered by the 

University as potentially applicable to some or all of the requests to CRU. I can 

speculate that some or all of the following [...] might have been considered: 

(a) Section 22—where the requested information is intended for future (but 

imminent) publication; 

(b) Section 40—where disclosure of personal data would breach any of the data 

protection principles; 

(c) Section 41—where the information had been obtained from elsewhere in such 

circumstances that its disclosure would constitute an actionable breach of 

confidence under common law; 

(d) Section 43 (qualified)—where disclosure would, or would be likely to, 

prejudice the commercial interests of any person, including the public 

authority; 

(e) Section 44—where disclosure is prohibited by another enactment or 

inconsistent with an EU obligation (which may include some intellectual 

property restrictions); and 

107 EIR: Environmental Information Regulations 2004. Deriving from European Directive 2003/4/EC these give rights of 

public access to environmental information held by public authorities. 

108 Ev 8, para 2.2 

109 Ev 9, para 3.6 
26 The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 

(f) Section 14 (not an exemption, strictly speaking)—where the request is 

vexatious.110

79. We were grateful to Mr Thomas for explaining the operation of the FOIA and EIR. He 

did, however, point out that he did not have detailed knowledge of events at UEA since 

leaving the Information Commissioner’s Office: 

I have no idea at all what has happened inside my former office. I cannot say because 

this is a serious matter. It depends a great deal on the circumstances of the particular 

case, the evidence. I have had no direct contact with the office as to how this case is 

being handled.111

Alleged breaches of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 

The e-mails 

80. Some of the hacked e-mails appear to reveal scientists encouraging their colleagues to 

resist disclosure and to delete e-mails, apparently to prevent them from being revealed to 

people making FOIA requests. Below are examples, in chronological order, of e-mails sent 

by Professor Jones which address FOIA and requests for information. 

E-mail: 1107454306 [Extract] 

At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote: 

Mike,[...]Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this 

time! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The 

two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of 

Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your 

similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works 

on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide 

behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could 

ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR 

should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say 

we must adhere to it !. [...] 

E-mail: 1219239172 [Extract] 

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> 

To: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> 

Subject: Re: Revised version the Wengen paper 

Date: Wed Aug 20 09:32:52 2008 

[...] Keith/Tim still getting FOI requests as well as MOHC and Reading. All our FOI officers have 

been in discussions and are now using the same exceptions not to respond - advice they got from 

the Information Commissioner. As an aside and just between us, it seems that Brian Hoskins has 

withdrawn himself from the WG1 Lead nominations. It seems he doesn’t want to have to deal with 

 110 Ev 9, para 3.7 

111 Q 58 
The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 27

this hassle. 

The FOI line we’re all using is this. IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI – the Sceptics have been 

told this. Even though we (MOHC, CRU/UEA) possibly hold relevant info the IPCC is not part our 

remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don’t have an obligation to pass it on. 

Cheers 

Phil 

E-mail: 1228330629 

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> 

To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> 

Subject: Re: Schles suggestion 

Date: Wed Dec 3 13:57:09 2008 

Cc: mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Karl Taylor 

<taylor13@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, peter gleckler gleckler1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx 

Ben, 

When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the requests. It took a 

couple of half hour sessions - one at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA 

was all about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, everyone at 

UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental Sciences school - the head of school and a few 

others) became very supportive. I’ve got to know the FOI person quite well and the Chief Librarian 

- who deals with appeals. The VC is also aware of what is going on - at least for one of the requests, 

but probably doesn’t know the number we’re dealing with. We are in double figures. 

One issue is that these requests aren’t that widely known within the School. So I don’t know who 

else at UEA may be getting them. CRU is moving up the ladder of requests at UEA though - we’re 

way behind computing though. We’re away of requests going to others in the UK - MOHC, 

Reading, DEFRA and Imperial College. So spelling out all the detail to the LLNL management 

should be the first thing you do. I hope that Dave is being supportive at PCMDI. The inadvertent 

email I sent last month has led to a Data Protection Act request sent by a certain Canadian, saying 

that the email maligned his scientific credibility with his peers! 

If he pays 10 pounds (which he hasn’t yet) I am supposed to go through my emails and he can get 

anything I’ve written about him. About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little - if 

anything at all. This legislation is different from the FOI - it is supposed to be used to find put why 

you might have a poor credit rating ! In response to FOI and EIR requests, we’ve put up some data - 

mainly paleo data. Each request generally leads to more - to explain what we’ve put up. Every time, 

so far, that hasn’t led to anything being added - instead just statements saying read what is in the 

papers and what is on the web site! Tim Osborn sent one such response (via the FOI person) earlier 

this week. We’ve never sent programs, any codes and manuals. 

In the UK, the Research Assessment Exercise results will be out in 2 weeks time. 

These are expensive to produce and take too much time, so from next year we’ll be moving onto a 

metric based system. The metrics will be # and amounts of grants, papers and citations etc. I did 

flippantly suggest that the # of FOI requests you get should be another. 

When you look at CA, they only look papers from a handful of people. They will start on another 

coming out in The Holocene early next year. Gavin and Mike are on this with loads of others. I’ve 

told both exactly what will appear on CA once they get access to it! 

Cheers 
28 The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 

Phil 

E-mail: 1237496573 [Extract] 

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> 

To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx 

Subject: Re: See the link below 

Date: Thu Mar 19 17:02:53 2009 

[...] CRU has had numerous FOI requests since the beginning of 2007. The Met Office, Reading, 

NCDC and GISS have had as well – many related to IPCC involvement. I know the world changes 

and the way we do things changes, but these requests and the sorts of simple mistakes, should not 

have an influence on the way things have been adequately dealt with for over a century. 

Cheers 

Phil 

81. In his submission Andrew Montford stated that: 

Research materials should be made available to outsiders as a requirement of the 

scientific method. That scientists have failed to do so is reprehensible, but the fact 

that they have apparently also resorted to breaches of the Freedom of Information 

Act in order to do so requires urgent attention from policymakers.112

82. As we explained in the previous chapter, David Holland was the author of several FOIA 

requests that were mentioned in the leaked e-mails. In his submission he pointed out that 

on 9 May [2008] in e-mail 1210367056, Professor Jones sent “my formal information 

request to ‘team’ members Mann, Hughes and Ammann” writing: 

You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the 

person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim have written and 

received re Ch 6 of AR4.113 We think we’ve found a way around this.114 

83. Mr Holland also drew attention to e-mail 1212063122 dated 29 May 2008 in which 

Professor Jones asked Professor Mann: 

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do 

likewise. Can you also email [Eu]Gene [Wahl] and get him to do the same? I don’t 

have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise.115 

Correspondence with the Deputy Information Commissioner 

84. On 22 January 2010, when the Deputy Information Commissioner, Graham Smith, 

issued a statement which suggested that at l east some of the requested information should 

112 Ev 159, para 6 

113 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Fourth Assessment Report 

114 Ev 117, para 23 

115 Ev 118, para 32 
The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 29

have been disclosed in the absence of applicable exemptions, it gave support to the 

criticisms of CRU’s handling of FOIA requests. Mr Smith said: 

The FOI Act makes it an offence for public authorities to act so as to prevent 

intentionally the disclosure of requested information. Mr Holland’s FOI requests 

were submitted in 2007/8, but it has only recently come to light that they were not 

dealt with in accordance with the Act. The legislation requires action within six 

months of the offence taking place, so by the time the action came to light the 

opportunity to consider a prosecution was long gone.116

85. Mr Thomas commented that this was “clearly a reference to section 77 of the Act 

and/or the near-identical Regulation 19 of EIR”.117 Section 77 of the FOIA provides: 

1. Where: 

(a) a request for information has been made to a public authority, 

(b) under section 1 of this Act or section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998, the 

applicant would have been entitled (subject to payment of any fee) to 

communication of any information in accordance with that section, 

any person to whom this subsection applies is guilty of an offence if he alters, defaces, 

blocks, erases, destroys or conceals any record held by the public authority, with the 

intention of preventing the disclosure by that authority of all, or any part, of the 

information to the communication of which the applicant would have been entitled. 

2. Subsection (1) applies to the public authority and to any person who is employed 

by, is an officer of, or is subject to the direction of, the public authority. 

3. A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to 

a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.118

86. Mr Thomas added that the Deputy Commissioner also appeared “to have in mind” 

section 127(1) of the Magistrates Court Act 1980, which provides that 

a magistrates’ court shall not try an information or hear a complaint unless the 

information was laid, or the complaint made, within 6 months from the time when 

the offence was committed, or the matter of complaint arose.119

Mr Thomas confirmed in oral evidence that 

because of the interaction with the Magistrates Court Act, any prosecution must be 

brought within six months of the offence being committed.120

87. In its memorandum to our inquiry, UEA defended its actions: 

116 Ev 9, para 4.1 

117 Ev 10 

118 Ev 10, para 4.1 

119 Ev 10, para 4.2 

120 Q 56 
30 The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 

CRU has been accused of refusing to release data requested under the FOIA. There 

are many obstacles outside CRU’s control surrounding the release of data provided 

by NMSs [National Meteorological Services]. Many FOIA requests made to CRU 

related to primary data provided by the NMSs. Some of these data are subject to 

formal non-publication agreements between the NMS and CRU. Other primary data 

had been provided to CRU on an individual-to-individual basis, with accompanying 

verbal agreements that they may be used within the gridded dataset, but should not 

be passed on to others. CRU responded to the FOIA requests for primary data by 

pointing out that approximately 90% of the stations in the CRU dataset are available 

from other sources, particularly GHCN.121

88. On 29 January there was an exchange between UEA and Mr Smith, the Deputy 

Commissioner. Brian Summers, the Registrar and Secretary of UEA responded forcibly to 

Mr Smith’s 22 January press statement, which asserted that UEA had not dealt with FOIA 

requests “as they should have been under the legislation”.122 He did not consider it was 

“acceptable that such a statement which has led to an extremely damaging commentary on 

the University [was] first communicated to the University by a journalist”.123 His letter goes 

on to defend UEA’s actions in detail and to ask that, if the Information Commissioner’s 

Office (ICO) cannot retract the 22 January statement, it issue a clarification regarding the 

alleged breaches of the FOIA. A response from the ICO was issued the same day. It did not 

retract the original statement but offered clarification: 

1. [No] decision notice has yet been issued and no alleged breaches have yet been 

put to the University for comment. That matter has yet to be addressed, but it 

will be over coming months. 

2. The fact that the elements of a section 77 offence may have been found here, but 

cannot be acted on because of the elapsed time, is a very serious matter. The ICO 

is not resiling from its position on this. 

3. The ICO’s position is as stated in point 2 above. The statement may be read to 

indicate that.124 Under section 77, an offence may be committed by an individual, 

not necessarily the public authority itself. 

4. Errors like this are frequently made in press reports and the ICO cannot be 

expected to correct them, particularly when the ICO has not itself referred to 

penalties or sanctions in its own statement.125

121 Ev 20, para 3.7.2 

122 “Scientists in stolen e-mail scandal hid climate data”, The Times, 28 January 2010 

123 Registrar and Secretary to Deputy Information Commissioner - 29 January 2010, UEA website, Correspondence 

between University of East Anglia and the Information Commissioner’s Office, 

www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/ICOcorrespondence 

124 UEA had asked the Deputy Commissioner to confirm that “your statement cannot be taken to mean that there has 

been a demonstrable breach of Section 77, which is a breach of the FOI which can result in prosecution”; Registrar 

and Secretary to Deputy Information Commissioner, 29 January 2010, UEA website, Correspondence between 

University of East Anglia and the Information Commissioner’s Office, 

www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/ICOcorrespondence 

125 Deputy Information Commissioner to Registrar and Secretary - 29 January 2010, UEA website, Correspondence 

between University of East Anglia and the Information Commissioner’s Office, 

www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/ICOcorrespondence 
The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 31

89. UEA responded on 1 February thanking the ICO for the clarification but setting out its 

concerns relating to the press coverage of the ICO’s original statement: 

Your clarification that the press cannot infer from your statement to the Sunday 

Times that it has been established that the University (or indeed any individual 

associated with the University) has breached the terms of the Freedom of 

Information Act is welcome. [UEA’s] reputation which has been subjected to these 

damaging and incorrect assertions claiming to be based on your statement and we 

must take some steps to put this right. We will be writing to the media which carried 

reports based on your statement, pointing out the inaccuracies and asking them to 

rectify the position.126

90. In his oral evidence Professor Acton questioned the ICO statement of 22 January: 

our principle is that prima facie evidence is evidence which on the face of it and 

without investigation suggests that there is a case to answer. To my mind if there is 

prima facie evidence; why did I set up the Muir Russell independent review? Prima 

facie evidence is not the same as, you have been found to breach. [...] If it is sub 

judice, if, as we had in the letter ten days ago from the ICO, the investigation has not 

even begun, I am puzzled how we could have been found to breach if there has been 

no investigation.127

91. The ICO’s most recent letter, dated 3 March, in UEA’s view, “makes plain that there is 

no assumption by the ICO, prior to investigation, that UEA has breached the Act; and that 

no investigation has yet been completed.”128 The ICO’s letter confirmed that the “ICO is 

not pursuing any investigation under section 77 of the Act. That matter is closed as far as 

the ICO is concerned, given the statutory time limits for action”. It added that: 

The ICO acknowledges your concern about the statement made and the subsequent 

media and blog reports. Given that the Deputy Commissioner has already been 

publicly associated with the matter, any Decision Notice will be reviewed and signed 

off by another authorised signatory.129

We regret that the ICO made a statement to the press that went beyond that which it 

could substantiate and that it took over a month for the ICO properly to put the record 

straight. We recommend that the ICO develop procedures to ensure that its public 

comments are checked and that mechanisms exist to swiftly correct any mis-statements 

or misinterpretations of such statements.

92. The disclosed e-mails appear to show a culture of non-disclosure at CRU and instances 

where information (disclosable or otherwise) may have been deleted, to avoid disclosure. 

The Deputy Information Commissioner’s letter of 29 January gives a clear indication that a 

126 Registrar and Secretary to Deputy Information Commissioner - 1 February 2010, UEA website, Correspondence 

between University of East Anglia and the Information Commissioner’s Office, 

www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/ICOcorrespondence 

127 Q130 

128 Ev 39, para A 

129 Ev 39, annex 
32 The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 

breach of the FOIA may have occurred but that a prosecution was time-barred.130 As, 

however, UEA pointed out, no investigation has been carried out. 

93. It seems to us that both sides have a point. There is prima facie evidence that CRU has 

breached the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It would, however, be premature, 

without a thorough investigation affording each party the opportunity to make 

representations, to conclude that UEA was in breach of the Act. In our view, it is 

unsatisfactory to leave the matter unresolved simply because of the operation of the sixmonth time limit on the initiation of prosecutions. Much of the reputation of CRU 

hangs on the issue. We conclude that the matter needs to be resolved conclusively—

either by the Independent Climate Change Email Review or by the Information 

Commissioner.

94. On the question of the six-month time limit on the initiation of prosecutions, Mr 

Thomas pressed for a revision of the law. He pointed out that apart from in the most 

blatant cases “it will usually be impossible for the ICO to detect an offence within 6 months 

of its occurrence” and thus to be able to initiate a prosecution.131 He drew attention to a 

recent debate in the House of Lords on a proposal to amend the time limit. In reply, in the 

debate the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice said that: 

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 came into force only in 2005, and [...] we have 

no evidence at present that the current six-month time limit presents a systemic 

problem for the Information Commissioner or any other prosecutor in taking action 

under Section 77. [...] We will listen to the views of the Information Commissioner 

and other interested parties on this point, and if there is evidence that the current 

legislation is causing systemic difficulties, we will look for ways to address the matter, 

if necessary by means of an alternative legislative vehicle in the future. However, I 

cannot go further than that today on behalf of the Government.132

No change was made to the legislation. 

95. We consider that events at CRU throw light on the operation of the Freedom of 

Information Act 2000 and, in particular, whether there is a need to amend the time limit 

on prosecutions from six months from the time the alleged offence was committed. If the 

Minister was correct to assert in July 2009 that the Government had no evidence that 

the current six-month time limit presents a systemic problem, then it is now clear that 

such evidence exists. Irrespective of whether or not CRU breached the Freedom of 

Information Act 2000, we recommend that the Government review the operation of 

section 77 of the 2000 Act and the six month limit on the initiation of prosecutions 

provided by section 127(1) of the Magistrates Court Act 1980.

130 UEA website, Correspondence between University of East Anglia and the Information Commissioner’s Office, 

www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/ICOcorrespondence 

131 Ev 10, para 4.3 

132 HL Deb, 21 July 2009, col 1571 
The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 33

Volume of requests 

96. In the face of allegations of poor handling of FOIA requests, one of the explanations 

offered by UEA was that in: 

July 2009 UEA received an unprecedented, and frankly administratively 

overwhelming, deluge of FOIA requests related to CRU. These amounted to 61 

requests out of a 2009 total of 107 related to CRU, compared to annual totals of 2 in 

2008 and 4 in 2007 (University totals for those years were 204, 72 and 44 

respectively).133

97. At the oral evidence session Lord Lawson commented on the increase in the volume of 

FOIA requests: 

what had happened was there had been a very, very small number of FOI Act 

requests to begin with and it was in response to those that there was all the evasion, 

the lack of disclosure and all the other things which we have seen in the emails: 

discussions about possibly destroying evidence and so on. All that came well before 

the 2009 flood of stuff. The 2009 flood, if you look at the sequence of events, was a 

response to the refusal to give disclosure of various things before. That was what 

came first.134

98. There are two issues here: the adequacy of CRU’s handling of the FOIA requests and 

whether the increase in the number of requests in July 2009 was a deluge. On the latter, Mr 

Thomas said that, whilst agreeing that UEA had faced a significant rise in FOIA requests in 

July 2009, he did not consider that a total of 61 was a “huge number”.135 

99. On handling, CRU claimed that it could not cope with the significant rise in FOIA 

requests because it only had three full-time academic staff.136 We therefore wrote to UEA 

on 2 March 2010 to ask what extra resources were provided to assist CRU cope with these 

requests. UEA responded that: 

additional support was provided to the University’s Information Policy Compliance 

Manager (IPCM) who handles FOI requests. This included rescheduling workloads 

to allow him to concentrate on the CRU FOI requests and diverting secretarial 

support to provide additional resource. Given the high volume of requests received, 

the Director of Information Services (DoIS) also took an active role in the first stage 

of a number of requests, thus providing additional support to the IPCM. (Should any 

cases where the DoIS was directly involved in the first stage be appealed then we have 

arranged for the PVC Academic to adjudicate to ensure impartiality). ISD also fasttracked the merging of the Security Policy and Compliance team to ensure that a 

fully trained back-up to the IPCM was available.137 

133 Ev 20, para 3.7.4 

134 Q 9 

135 Q 68 

136 Q 92 [Professor Acton], Ev 20, para 3.7.4; Ev 37, Q 1 

137 Ev 37, para 1 
34 The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 

100. The Science Faculty also provided additional administrative support, including that of 

the Director of Faculty Administration, the most senior member of the Faculty’s 

administrative staff. UEA pointed out that many of the requests were of a very technical 

nature and: 

required scientific knowledge and understanding of the subject area in order to 

provide the details. Despite the additional administrative resources provided, the 

requirement to respond to the 61 requests received in July 2009 impacted 

considerably upon the work of CRU.138

101. We also asked UEA to outline what legal advice and guidance on handling had been 

offered to CRU in handling these FOIA requests. UEA confirmed that the: 

IPCM provided advice to CRU on the requirements of the Act both generally, and in 

relation to any applicable sections, exemptions or exceptions pertaining to the 

specific request. In this latter role, the IPCM set out the requirements of any possible 

exemption or exception, inclusive of the public interest test, and elicited from CRU 

staff whether the public interest test had been met. Additional advanced training was 

provided to the ‘FOI Contact’ for the Faculty of Science, the Director of Faculty 

Administration. In this role, the FOI contact acted as a support to CRU in the 

location and retrieval of information and provided assistance to the IPCM in 

exploring the application of the Act to the specific requests.139

102. On the evidence we took we have concerns about the handling of FOIA requests by 

CRU. First, the disclosed e-mails betray an attitude to freedom of information that was 

antipathetic to the spirit of disclosure in the legislation. Mr Thomas pointed out that: 

the simplest approach, particularly where requests tend to generate either a defensive 

attitude or place a great burden on the public authority, is proactive disclosure in the 

first place.[...] Public authorities ought to decide what really has to be kept away from 

the public. If it is particularly sensitive or there is a good reason for withholding it, 

fair enough, but where there is no good reason for withholding information, then 

why not proactively disclose it and avoid the hassle of large numbers of requests?140

103. Whether or not CRU liked it, those making FOIA requests were entitled to have their 

requests dealt with in accordance with the legislation and, if the information sought did not 

fall within one of the exclusions provided by the FOIA, it should have been disclosed. We 

have already recommended in paragraph 54 above that in future information, 

including data and methodology, should be published proactively on the internet 

wherever possible. However, a culture of withholding information—from those 

perceived by CRU to be hostile to global warming—appears to have pervaded CRU’s 

approach to FOIA requests from the outset. We consider this to be unacceptable.

104. In the face of such an unhelpful approach we are not surprised that FOIA requests 

multiplied. When the surge in FOIA requests hit CRU in July 2009 UEA provided extra 

138 Ev 37, para 1 

139 Ev 37, para 2 

140 Q 70 
The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 35

resources but because of their technical nature the same small group of staff at CRU had a 

pivotal role in handling the requests. We are not clear that the culture changed. We cannot 

reach a firm conclusion on the basis of the evidence we took but we must put on record 

our concern about the manner in which UEA allowed CRU to handle FOIA requests. 

Further, we found prima facie evidence to suggest that the UEA found ways to support 

the culture at CRU of resisting disclosure of information to climate change sceptics. 

The failure of UEA to grasp fully the potential damage to CRU and UEA by the nondisclosure of FOIA requests was regrettable. UEA needs to review its policy towards 

FOIA and re-assess how it can support academics whose expertise in this area is 

limited. 
36 The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 

4 Independent inquiries 

105. There are two reviews underway: the Independent Climate Change Email Review led 

by Sir Muir Russell; and a scientific assessment panel reviewing CRU’s key scientific 

publications. The Vice-Chancellor explained to us in oral evidence on 1 March 2010 that 

the reviews would focus on different matters: 

Muir Russell’s independent review is not looking at the science, it is looking at 

allegations about malpractice. As for the science itself, I have not actually seen any 

evidence of any flaw in the science but I am hoping, later this week, to announce the 

chair of a panel to reassess the science and make sure there is nothing wrong.141 

In the event the announcement was not made until 22 March. 

The Independent Climate Change Email Review 

106. The Independent Climate Change Email Review is being conducted by a team, led by 

Sir Muir Russell. According to the Review’s website the team has more than 100 years’ 

collective expertise of scientific research methodology and a wide range of scientific 

backgrounds. None have any links to the Climatic Research Unit, or the United Nations’ 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).142

Terms of reference 

107. The Review’s terms of reference are as follows: 

The Independent Review will investigate the key allegations that arose from a series 

of hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit 

(CRU). The review will: 

1.1. Examine the hacked e-mail exchanges, other relevant e-mail exchanges and any 

other information held at CRU to determine whether there is any evidence of the 

manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific 

practice and may therefore call into question any of the research outcomes. 

1.2. Review CRU’s policies and practices for acquiring, assembling, subjecting to 

peer review and disseminating data and research findings, and their compliance or 

otherwise with best scientific practice. 

1.3. Review CRU’s compliance or otherwise with the University’s policies and 

practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act (‘the FOIA’) 

and the Environmental Information Regulations (‘the EIR’) for the release of data. 

141 Q 129 

142 www.cce-review.org/About.php 
The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 37

1.4. Review and make recommendations as to the appropriate management, 

governance and security structures for CRU and the security, integrity and release 

of the data it holds.143

108. Sir Muir has discretion to amend or add to the terms of reference if he feels necessary, 

devise his own methods of working, and call on appropriate expertise, in order to 

investigate the allegations fully. UEA has asked for the Review to be completed by Spring 

2010 and this will be made public along with UEA’s response.144

109. Lord Lawson, in both his written submission and his oral evidence, considered that 

the terms of reference “may be a bit too CRU-centric”145 and “needed to be extended to 

include more fully the issue of the dissenting scientists”.146 These points were echoed in 

written submissions to us. Andrew Montford suggested that: 

The independence of the review is not assured. Sir Muir Russell was appointed to 

head the review by the vice-chancellor of the University of East Anglia, [...] Edward 

Acton. However, the emails disclosed implicate [his] predecessor in an apparent 

breach of the Freedom of Information Act and there is therefore a prime-facie case 

that the review is not sufficiently independent. [...] The review must take evidence 

from sceptics. At time of writing it appears that no prominent sceptic has been 

contacted by Sir Muir with a view to providing evidence. Without complainants 

being able to make their case to the review, it is unlikely that the findings will be 

sound or accepted by the sceptic community.147

Mike Haseler, creator of the Number 10 Petition regarding the CRU, was also critical of the 

Review saying that it “seems to serve no real purpose except the PR of the University to 

appear to be doing something.”148 

110. Others offered amendments to the terms of reference. Professor Ross McKitrick, a 

professor of environmental economics, recommended that the terms of reference “should 

consider whether CRU scientists whose responsibilities include providing climate data to 

the IPCC should not serve as IPCC Lead Authors (or Coordinating Lead Authors) on any 

Report or Chapter that assesses evidence for or against its quality for climatic research 

purposes.”149 

111. The Royal Society of Chemistry considered the terms of reference “adequate”150 and 

Professor John Beddington suggested that they “give sufficient scope for the issue to be 

investigated in full”.151 Professor Peter Cox, a former lead author on the last IPCC Working 

143 Ev 39 

144 “Sir Muir Russell to head the Independent Review into the allegations against the Climatic Research Unit (CRU)” 

UEA Press Release, 3 December 2009, www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/dec/CRUreview 

145 Q 5, Ev 1, annex containing letter dated 26 January 2010 from the Foundation to Sir Muir Russell (not printed) 

146 Q 3 

147 Ev 161, paras 22 and 24 

148 Ev 139, para 27 

149 Ev 140, para 3.2 

150 Ev 172, para 12 

151 Ev 45, para 7 
38 The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 

Group, suggested that the “Inquiry should hear evidence on the reviewing of scientific 

papers and the exclusion of papers from the IPCC report. It will be critical to determine 

whether these decisions were carried out on the basis of scientific merit alone”.152

112. In response to criticisms Sir Muir pointed out that the review “is not actually about 

the big science of global warming and making forecasts for the next hundred years”.153 He 

said that “it will not be window dressing”, and UEA had “not interfered at all”.154

113. We accept the assurances that Sir Muir Russell has given about the independence 

of the Independent Climate Change Email Review and we expect him to be scrupulous 

in preserving its impartiality. We see no reason why the Review’s conclusions and 

UEA’s response have to be published together. Indeed, it could give the impression that 

UEA was being given an advantage when it comes to responding. We consider that the 

Review’s conclusions and recommendations should not be conveyed to UEA in advance 

of publication. 

114. With regards to the terms of reference of the Review, we consider that as well as 

measuring CRU against current acceptable scientific practice, the Review should also 

make recommendations on best practice to be followed by CRU in the future. We invite 

Sir Muir Russell to respond formally to our Report to the extent that he sets out 

whether, on the basis of its contents, he finds the Terms of Reference of his inquiry 

need to be changed.

The Review team 

115. The Review Team membership, as announced, consisted of: 

Sir Muir Russell 

Professor Geoffrey Boulton 

Dr Philip Campbell [subsequently resigned] 

Professor Peter Clarke 

Mr David Eyton 

Professor Jim Norton.155

116. Sir Muir and the Review team held a press briefing at the Science Media Centre in 

London on 11 February 2010 to announce its membership, publish its workplan and issue 

a call for submissions from interested parties. Almost immediately it was beset by claims of 

partiality. On the same day as the launch Sir Muir Russell accepted the resignation of Dr 

Philip Campbell, Editor of Chief of Nature, after a recording of an interview given by Dr 

Campbell to China Radio International in December 2009 was alleged to raise doubts over 

his impartiality. Dr Campbell said: 

I made the remarks in good faith on the basis of media reports of the leaks. As I have 

made clear subsequently, I support the need for a full review of the facts behind the 

152 Ev 132, para 2 

153 Q 163 

154 Q 166 

155 Ev 40 
The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 39

leaked e-mails. There must be nothing that calls into question the ability of the 

independent Review to complete this task, and therefore I have decided to withdraw 

from the team.156

117. Sir Muir said “I have spoken to Philip Campbell, and I understand why he has 

withdrawn. I regret the loss of his expertise, but I respect his decision."157 Further 

allegations arose on 12 February that Professor Geoffrey Boulton’s background and views 

affected his ability to be a member of the Review.158 These have been rejected by Sir Muir 

Russell and by Professor Boulton. Professor Boulton said: 

At the Review press conference (on February 11), I pointed out that I had worked 

full-time in the School of Environmental Sciences at UEA from its inception in 1968 

to 1980, and that I had a part-time appointment between 1980 and 1986, whilst 

working primarily in the University of Amsterdam. Since then, I have had no 

professional contact with the University of East Anglia or the Climatic Research 

Unit. I was equally clear that although my research is not in the field of modern or 

recent climate change, I am familiar with its scientific basis and uncertainties 

surrounding it. I declared my current view of the balance of evidence: that the earth 

is warming and that human activity is implicated. These remain the views of the vast 

majority of scientists who research on climate change in its different aspects. They 

are based on extensive work worldwide, not that of a single institution. As a sceptical 

scientist, I am prepared to change those views if the evidence merits it. They certainly 

do not prevent me from being heavily biased against poor scientific practice, 

wherever it arises.159

Sir Muir Russell said: 

This Review must determine if there is evidence of poor scientific practice, as well as 

investigate allegations around the manipulation and suppression of data. As others 

have pointed out, it would be impossible to find somebody with the qualifications 

and experience we need who has not formed an opinion on climate change. I am 

completely confident that each member of the Review team has the integrity, the 

expertise, and the experience to complete our work impartially.160

118. In his oral evidence Sir Muir outlined his approach in choosing the team: 

156 “Dr Philip Campbell withdraws from the Review”, Independent Climate Change Email Review News release, 12 

February 2010, www.cce-review.org/News.php 

157 As above

158 There has been pressure on Professor Boulton to step down. The Scotsman reported: “Dr Benny Peizer, [sic] director 

of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a think tank which claims the debate on climate change has become 

distorted, called for Prof Boulton to step down, too. He said: ‘Prof Boulton obviously is a very distinguished 

geologist. The problem is, he is a very outspoken campaigner on this issue and he’s given talks calling for 

galvanising public opinion. He also worked at the very institution that he is now going to be investigating. That, we 

think, is a conflict of interest.’” ( “Senior Scots scientist in climate probe row”, The Scotsman, 13 February 2010) Sir 

Muir has rejected the call. (“Allegations of bias against Review member rejected”, Independent Climate Change 

Email Review News release, 15 February 2010) 

159 “Allegations of bias against Review member rejected”, Independent Climate Change Email Review News release, 15 

February 2010,www.cce-review.org/News.php 

160 As above
40 The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 

You can see as you look at the composition of the team that I needed to be looking at 

climate science in general but not somebody who was associated with this particular 

stream of work but would understand what was going on. There were going to be 

huge data handling issues, there was a lot of work on computing and data security 

and so on and that the work was going to have a resonance out there in the real 

world and around the world. Really on that basis I came up with this set of names 

that you can see. In relation to Dr Campbell, the others that I had got together 

thought that it would be extremely important to have somebody who knew about 

peer review and that was really the qualification that brought him in.161

119. It is unfortunate that the Independent Review got off to a bad start with the 

necessary resignation of Dr Campbell. The question of the operation of peer review is 

going to be a critical issue in the inquiry and the Review Team needs to take steps to 

ensure the insight and experience he would have brought are replaced.

Transparency 

120. Contributors to our inquiry have suggested the importance that the Independent 

Review is open and transparent. Lord Lawson, in his oral evidence, said that he was: 

concerned about the openness and transparency, [...] there should be public 

hearings, like you are having here—I think that is very, very important—and I regret 

the fact that it appears that they do not intend to do this.162

Andrew Montford commented: 

The review must be held in public. Sir Muir Russell has stated that he wants to retain 

the confidence of global warming sceptics. However, in his letter to Mr Willis of 10 

December 2009, [...] the vice-chancellor of UEA, states that Sir Muir will present his 

findings to [him], who will in turn present a report to the council of the university. 

We are asked to believe that Sir Muir will properly investigate [the ViceChancellor’s] role in the alleged FoI breaches, and that [he] will pass on the findings 

that Sir Muir makes on this subject to the university council.163

121. When answering our question on transparency Sir Muir indicated that the Review 

team “plans to put on its website the evidence that we receive”.164 When pressed on the 

question of holding public evidence sessions Sir Muir responded that: 

all my predispositions and those of the fellow team members are to do it that way 

[via written evidence] rather than to do it in a hearing of perhaps this kind or in a 

series of one-to-one interviews or whatever. Where we have interviews with people 

in CRU or elsewhere, those will be written up and they will be part of the record but 

at the moment I am not really sure that getting to the stage of putting people in a 

161 Q 160 

162 Q 3 

163 Ev 161, para 23 

164 Q 172 
The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 41

hearing context is going to be a particularly effective way of adding value to the 

objective evidence that we want to get our hands on.165 

122. We agree that the Review must be open and transparent. We conclude that, when the 

Independent Review holds oral hearings or interviews, they should be carried out in 

public wherever possible and that it should publish all the written evidence it receives 

on its website as soon as possible.

Scientific Appraisal Panel 

123. In its evidence to us the Independent Climate Change Email Review stated that its 

remit does not invite it to re-appraise the scientific work of CRU. That re-appraisal is being 

separately commissioned by UEA, with the assistance of the Royal Society.166 In a 

statement released on 11 February UEA said that: 

The Royal Society will assist the University in identifying assessors with the requisite 

expertise, standing and independence. “Published papers from CRU have gone 

through the rigorous and intensive peer review process which is the keystone for 

maintaining the integrity of scientific research,” said Professor Trevor Davies, the 

University’s Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research, Enterprise and Engagement. “That 

process and the findings of our researchers have been the subject of significant 

debate in recent months. Colleagues in CRU have strenuously defended their 

conduct and the published work and we believe it is in the interests of all concerned 

that there should be an additional assessment considering the science itself.” 

The independent reassessment will complement Sir Muir Russell’s Review of the key 

allegations about the handling of data arising from the publication of a series of emails hacked from CRU. Sir Muir’s Review is expected to announce its finding in 

Spring 2010. 

The reassessment of CRU’s key publications will be completed at the earliest date the 

assessors can manage. The findings will be made public.167

124. Details of the panel were announced on 22 March. It will be headed by Lord Oxburgh. 

His appointment was made on the recommendation of the Royal Society, which was also 

consulted on the choice of the six scientists on the panel: Professor Huw Davies, Professor 

of Physics at the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science at ETH Zürich; Professor 

Kerry Emanuel, Professor of Meteorology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 

Professor Lisa Graumlich, Director of the School of Natural Resources and the 

Environment at The University of Arizona; Professor David Hand, Professor of Statistics in 

the Department of Mathematics at Imperial College; Professor Herbert Huppert, Professor 

of Theoretical Geophysics at the University of Cambridge; and Professor Michael Kelly, 

Prince Philip Professor of Technology at the University of Cambridge. The panel will have 

165 Q 176 

166 Ev 40, para 4 

167 UEA, 11 February 2010, 

www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/New+scientific+assessment+of+climatic+research+publicatio

ns+announced 
42 The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 

access to any publications or materials it requests, and all information considered will be 

listed in the Report. UEA, in consultation with the Royal Society, has suggested that the 

panel looks in particular at key publications, from the body of CRU’s research referred to 

in the UEA submission to our inquiry. According to the announcement on 22 March, the 

panel will meet in Norwich in April and will have the opportunity to see original data and 

speak to those who did the work and it comprises of scientists who use techniques similar 

to those used in CRU but who largely apply them to other areas of research, as well as those 

with experience in climate or related research.168 

125. Announcing the Panel, Professor Trevor Davies, UEA’s Pro-Vice-Chancellor for 

Research, said that: 

Our concern has been to bring together a distinguished group of independent 

scientists who understand the difference between assertion and evidence, and are 

familiar with using the latter to judge the validity of conclusions arising from science 

research. The panel members have the right mix of skills to understand the complex 

nature of climate research and the discipline-based expertise to scrutinise CRU’s 

research. How they do this will be entirely down to the panel. 

The choice of scientists is sure to be the subject of discussion, and experience would 

suggest that it is impossible to find a group of eminent scientists to look at this issue 

who are acceptable to every interest group which has expressed a view in the last few 

months. Similarly it is unlikely that a group of people who have the necessary 

experience to assess the science, but have formed no view of their own on global 

warming, could be found.169

Public view of the climate science 

126. There is no doubt that the e-mail disclosure from CRU in November 2009, and 

especially the extensive media coverage that has followed it ever since, has affected the 

general public view of climate science, both in the UK and further afield. Professor Bob 

Watson, Defra’s Chief Scientific Adviser, told us that “the media has certainly portrayed 

the UEA issue as a crisis, so I think to the public it has been portrayed as a crisis”.170

Professor Peter Cox, a climate scientist and a lead-author on the last IPCC171 Working 

Group, in his written submission to us, said as much: “I am concerned that public 

confidence in the science of climate change has been undermined by the email leak”.172 In 

its submission the Royal Society of Chemistry said that the: 

true nature of science dictates that research is transparent and robust enough to 

survive scrutiny. A lack of willingness to disseminate scientific information may infer 

that the scientific results or methods used are not robust enough to face scrutiny, 

even if this conjecture is not well-founded. This has far-reaching consequences for 

168 “CRU Scientific Assessment Panel announced”, UEA Press Release, 22 March 2010, 

www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAPannounce 

169 As above 

170 Q 198 

171 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

172 Ev 132, para 1 
The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 43

the reputation of science as a whole, with the ability to undermine the public’s 

confidence in science.173

127. The majority of submissions submitted to our inquiry has been from those who stated 

that the disclosed e-mails confirmed their worries that the climate change orthodoxy has 

serious flaws and the actions of CRU seriously impugned the integrity of climate change 

research.174 A representative example was the memorandum from Dr Phillip Bratby, “a 

semi-retired energy consultant”, who said that having examined the disclosures: 

It is concluded that over at least a period of 20 years, climate science has been 

seriously compromised by the actions of a small group of scientists who have 

attempted to control the debate about climate change. The effects of this are 

potentially profound. For example a generation of work may have been corrupted 

and may be unreliable. A generation of students may have been corrupted and their 

work may be unreliable.175 

128. Others offered a different perspective. Dr Timothy Osborn, a full-time member of 

staff at CRU, defended CRU: 

It is impossible to draw firm conclusions from the hacked documents and emails. 

They do not represent the complete record, and they are not a random selection 

from the complete record. They are clearly selected with a purpose in mind and it is 

easy for people to fall into the traps set by those who did the selection.176

129. Beyond CRU, Professor Hans von Storch and Dr Myles Allen, professional statistical 

climatologists, agreed that the publication of the hacked e-mails had initiated an intense 

debate about the credibility of climate science and that “unfortunately, this debate 

sometimes goes so far as to question a key result of climate science”,177 and the 

language used in some of these e-mails has created concern, among both scientists 

and the public, about the openness and integrity of the scientific process. But at the 

same time it is critical to point out that no grounds have arisen to doubt the validity 

of the thermometer-based temperature record since 1850, nor any results based 

upon it.178

130. We put the concerns about the threat to the reputation of science to the fifth panel 

who gave oral evidence: Professor John Beddington, Government Chief Scientific Adviser, 

Professor Julia Slingo, Chief Scientist, Met Office, and Professor Bob Watson, Chief 

Scientist, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Professor Beddington did 

173 Ev 171, para 4 

174 For examples, see Ev 68 [Richard S Courtney]; Ev 77 [Walter Radtke]; Ev 78 [Geoffrey Sherrington]; and Ev 93 [Clive 

Menzies] 

175 Ev 92, para 21 

176 Ev 130, para 3 

177 Ev 172, para 1 

178 As above
44 The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 

not consider that “UK science has been damaged”.179 The Met Office, in its written 

submission stated that 

the UK enjoys a reputation for strong and robust science on the international stage. 

In the field of climate research the Met Office is widely acknowledged as world 

leading.180 

Professor Slingo confirmed in oral evidence that she has “absolute confidence in the 

science that we produce at the Met Office”,181 and Professor Watson, looking at the wider 

situation, attested that “there is absolutely no adverse effect on any of the conclusions of the 

IPCC.”182 

131. In our view, reputation has to be built on the solid foundation of excellent, peerreviewed science. The review of the science to be carried out by the Scientific Appraisal 

Panel, which UEA announced on 22 March, should determine whether the work of 

CRU has been soundly built and it would be premature for us to pre-judge that review. 

132. Reputation does not, however, rest solely on the quality of work as it should. It also 

depends on perception. It is self-evident that the disclosure of CRU e-mails has 

damaged the reputation of UK climate science and, as views on global warming have 

become polarised, any deviation from the highest scientific standards will be pounced 

on. As we explained in chapter 2, the practices and methods of climate science are a key 

issue. If the practices of CRU are found to be in line with the rest of climate science, the 

question would arise whether climate science methods of operation need to change. In 

this event we would recommend that the scientific community should consider 

changing those practices to ensure greater transparency.

Need for a single review 

133. The final issue is whether the best interests of science are served by having two reviews 

or inquiries. We found this difficult to evaluate as details of the Scientific Appraisal Panel 

were released in a late stage in our inquiry. When we asked Sir Muir whether it would be 

better to have a single inquiry, he responded: 

It would have been possible, obviously, to have constructed an inquiry that looked at 

both aspects of that, and that was not what I was asked to do. Whether I would have 

been the right person to be asked to do it I do not know but certainly it obviously 

became clear to the Vice Chancellor that there was this different issue about the 

confidence that one should have not in all the methodological and handling issues 

but in the higher level set of conclusions about what was actually happening.183

134. The process of two reviews or inquiries is underway. In our view there is the potential 

for overlap between the two inquiries—for example, the question of the operation of peer 

179 Q 194 

180 Ev 46, para 1 

181 Q 197 

182 Q 198 

183 Q 181 
The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 45

review needs to examine both methodology and quality of the science subject to review. 

The two reviews or inquiries need to map their activities to ensure that there are no 

unmanaged overlaps or gaps. If there are, the whole process could be undermined.
46 The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 

5 Conclusions 

135. Consideration of the complaints and accusations made against CRU has led us to 

three broad conclusions. 

136. Conclusion 1 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, we consider that his actions were in line with common practice in 

the climate science community. We have suggested that the community consider 

becoming more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies. On 

accusations relating to Freedom of Information, we consider that much of the 

responsibility should lie with UEA, not CRU. 

137. Conclusion 2 In addition, insofar as we have been able to consider accusations 

of dishonesty—for example, Professor Jones’s alleged attempt to “hide the decline”—

we consider that there is no case to answer. Within our limited inquiry and the evidence 

we took, the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. We have 

found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus as 

expressed by Professor Beddington, that “global warming is happening [and] that it is 

induced by human activity”.184 It was not our purpose to examine, nor did we seek 

evidence on, the science produced by CRU. It will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel 

to look in detail into all the evidence to determine whether or not the consensus view 

remains valid. 

138. Conclusion 3 A great responsibility rests on the shoulders of climate science: to 

provide the planet’s decision makers with the knowledge they need to secure our future. 

The challenge that this poses is extensive and some of these decisions risk our standard 

of living. When the prices to pay are so large, the knowledge on which these kinds of 

decisions are taken had better be right. The science must be irreproachable.

184 Q 191 
The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 47

Conclusions and recommendations 

Datasets 

1. 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. (Paragraph 38) 

2. 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. 

(Paragraph 39) 

3. We note that the research passed the peer review process of some highly reputable 

journals. However, we note that CRU could have been more open at that time in 

providing the detailed methodological working on its website. We recommend that 

all publicly funded research groups consider whether they are being as open as they 

can be, and ought to be, with the details of their methodologies. (Paragraph 45) 

4. We therefore conclude that there is independent verification, through the use of 

other methodologies and other sources of data, of the results and conclusions of the 

Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. (Paragraph 49) 

5. Even if the data that CRU used were not publicly available—which they mostly are—

or the methods not published—which they have been—its published results would 

still be credible: 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. (Paragraph 51) 

6. It is not standard practice in climate science and many other fields to publish the raw 

data and the computer code in academic papers. We think that this is problematic 

because climate science is a matter of global importance and of public interest, and 

therefore the quality and transparency of the science should be irreproachable. We 
48 The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 

therefore consider that climate scientists should take steps to make available all the 

data used to generate their published work, including raw data; and it should also be 

made clear and referenced where data has been used but, because of commercial or 

national security reasons is not available. Scientists are also, under Freedom of 

Information laws and under the rules of normal scientific conduct, entitled to 

withhold data which is due to be published under the peer-review process. In 

addition, scientists should take steps to make available in full their methodological 

workings, including the computer codes. Data and methodological workings should 

be provided via the internet. There should be enough information published to allow 

verification. (Paragraph 54) 

7. Critics of CRU have suggested that Professor Jones’s use of the word “trick” is 

evidence that he was part of a conspiracy to hide evidence that did not fit his view 

that recent global warming is predominately caused by human activity. The balance 

of evidence patently fails to support this view. It appears to be a colloquialism for a 

“neat” method of handling data. (Paragraph 60) 

8. Critics of CRU have suggested that Professor Jones’s use of the words “hide the 

decline” is evidence that he was part of a conspiracy to hide evidence that did not fit 

his view that recent global warming is predominantly caused by human activity. That 

he has published papers—including a paper in Nature—dealing with this aspect of 

the science clearly refutes this allegation. In our view, it was shorthand for the 

practice of discarding data known to be erroneous. We expect that this is a matter 

the Scientific Appraisal Panel will address. (Paragraph 66) 

9. The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to 

subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making 

informal comments on academic papers. The Independent Climate Change Email 

Review should look in detail at all of these claims. (Paragraph 73) 

Freedom of Information issues 

10. We regret that the ICO made a statement to the press that went beyond that which it 

could substantiate and that it took over a month for the ICO properly to put the 

record straight. We recommend that the ICO develop procedures to ensure that its 

public comments are checked and that mechanisms exist to swiftly correct any misstatements or misinterpretations of such statements. (Paragraph 91) 

11. There is prima facie evidence that CRU has breached the Freedom of Information 

Act 2000. It would, however, be premature, without a thorough investigation 

affording each party the opportunity to make representations, to conclude that UEA 

was in breach of the Act. In our view, it is unsatisfactory to leave the matter 

unresolved simply because of the operation of the six-month time limit on the 

initiation of prosecutions. Much of the reputation of CRU hangs on the issue. We 

conclude that the matter needs to be resolved conclusively—either by the 

Independent Climate Change Email Review or by the Information Commissioner. 

(Paragraph 93) 
The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 49

12. If the Minister was correct to assert in July 2009 that the Government had no 

evidence that the current six-month time limit presents a systemic problem, then it is 

now clear that such evidence exists. Irrespective of whether or not CRU breached the 

Freedom of Information Act 2000, we recommend that the Government review the 

operation of section 77 of the 2000 Act and the six month limit on the initiation of 

prosecutions provided by section 127(1) of the Magistrates Court Act 1980. 

(Paragraph 95) 

13. We have already recommended in paragraph 54 above that in future information, 

including data and methodology, should be published proactively on the internet 

wherever possible. However, a culture of withholding information—from those 

perceived by CRU to be hostile to global warming—appears to have pervaded CRU’s 

approach to FOIA requests from the outset. We consider this to be unacceptable. 

(Paragraph 103) 

14. We cannot reach a firm conclusion on the basis of the evidence we took but we must 

put on record our concern about the manner in which UEA allowed CRU to handle 

FOIA requests. Further, we found prima facie evidence to suggest that the UEA 

found ways to support the culture at CRU of resisting disclosure of information to 

climate change sceptics. The failure of UEA to grasp fully the potential damage to 

CRU and UEA by the non-disclosure of FOIA requests was regrettable. UEA needs 

to review its policy towards FOIA and re-assess how it can support academics whose 

expertise in this area is limited. (Paragraph 104) 

The Independent Climate Change Email Review 

15. We accept the assurances that Sir Muir Russell has given about the independence of 

the Independent Climate Change Email Review and we expect him to be scrupulous 

in preserving its impartiality. We see no reason why the Review’s conclusions and 

UEA’s response have to be published together. Indeed, it could give the impression 

that UEA was being given an advantage when it comes to responding. We consider 

that the Review’s conclusions and recommendations should not be conveyed to UEA 

in advance of publication. (Paragraph 113) 

16. With regards to the terms of reference of the Review, we consider that as well as 

measuring CRU against current acceptable scientific practice, the Review should also 

make recommendations on best practice to be followed by CRU in the future. We 

invite Sir Muir Russell to respond formally to our Report to the extent that he sets 

out whether, on the basis of its contents, he finds the Terms of Reference of his 

inquiry need to be changed. (Paragraph 114) 

17. It is unfortunate that the Independent Review got off to a bad start with the necessary 

resignation of Dr Campbell. The question of the operation of peer review is going to 

be a critical issue in the inquiry and the Review Team needs to take steps to ensure 

the insight and experience he would have brought are replaced. (Paragraph 119) 

18. We conclude that, when the Independent Review holds oral hearings or interviews, 

they should be carried out in public wherever possible and that it should publish all 

the written evidence it receives on its website as soon as possible. (Paragraph 122) 
50 The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 

The Scientific Appraisal Panel 

19. In our view, reputation has to be built on the solid foundation of excellent, peerreviewed science. The review of the science to be carried out by the Scientific 

Appraisal Panel, which UEA announced on 22 March, should determine whether the 

work of CRU has been soundly built and it would be premature for us to pre-judge 

that review. (Paragraph 131) 

20. Reputation does not, however, rest solely on the quality of work as it should. It also 

depends on perception. It is self-evident that the disclosure of the CRU e-mails has 

damaged the reputation of UK climate science and, as views on global warming have 

become polarised, any deviation from the highest scientific standards will be 

pounced on. As we explained in chapter 2, the practices and methods of climate 

science are a key issue. If the practices of CRU are found to be in line with the rest of 

climate science, the question would arise whether climate science methods of 

operation need to change. In this event we would recommend that the scientific 

community should consider changing those practices to ensure greater transparency. 

(Paragraph 132) 

The two inquiries 

21. The two reviews or inquiries need to map their activities to ensure that there are no 

unmanaged overlaps or gaps. If there are, the whole process could be undermined. 

(Paragraph 134) 

Conclusions 

22. 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, we consider that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate 

science community. We have suggested that the community consider becoming 

more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies. On 

accusations relating to Freedom of Information, we consider that much of the 

responsibility should lie with UEA, not CRU. (Paragraph 136) 

23. In addition, insofar as we have been able to consider accusations of dishonesty—for 

example, Professor Jones’s alleged attempt to “hide the decline”—we consider that 

there is no case to answer. Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the 

scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. We have found no 

reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed 

by Professor Beddington, that “global warming is happening [and] that it is induced 

by human activity”. It was not our purpose to examine, nor did we seek evidence on, 

the science produced by CRU. It will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel to look in 

detail into all the evidence to determine whether or not the consensus view remains 

valid. (Paragraph 137) 

24. A great responsibility rests on the shoulders of climate science: to provide the 

planet’s decision makers with the knowledge they need to secure our future. The 

challenge that this poses is extensive and some of these decisions risk our standard of 
The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 51

living. When the prices to pay are so large, the knowledge on which these kinds of 

decisions are taken had better be right. The science must be irreproachable. 

(Paragraph 138) 
52 The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 

Formal Minutes 

Wednesday 24 March 2010 

Members present: 

Mr Phil Willis, in the Chair 

Mr Tim Boswell 

Dr Evan Harris 

Dr Brian Iddon

Graham Stringer

The Committee considered this matter. 

Draft Report (The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East 

Anglia), proposed by the Chair, brought up and read. 

Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph. 

Paragraphs 1 to 46 read and agreed to. 

Paragraph 47 read. 

Question put, That the paragraph stand part of the Report. 

The Committee divided. 

Ayes, 3

Mr Tim Boswell 

Dr Evan Harris 

Dr Brian Iddon 

Noes, 1

Graham Stringer 

Paragraphs 48 to 50 read and agreed to. 

Paragraph 51 read. 

Question put, That the paragraph stand part of the Report. 

The Committee divided. 

Ayes, 3

Mr Tim Boswell 

Dr Evan Harris 

Dr Brian Iddon 

Noes, 1

Graham Stringer 

Paragraphs 52 to 65 read and agreed to. 

Paragraph 66 read. 

Amendment proposed, to leave out from the beginning to “We” in line 6 and insert “We have not taken 

enough evidence on this matter to come to a final conclusion”.—(Graham Stringer.) 

Question put, That the Amendment be made. 
The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 53

The Committee divided. 

Ayes, 1

Graham Stringer 

Noes, 3

Mr Tim Boswell 

Dr Evan Harris 

Dr Brian Iddon

Paragraph 66 agreed to. 

Paragraphs 67 to 131 read and agreed to. 

Paragraph 132 read. 

Amendment proposed, to leave out from “science” in line 6 to the end and add “it would be necessary for the 

whole of climate science to increase its transparency and improve its scientific methodology”.—(Graham 

Stringer.) 

Question put, That the Amendment be made. 

The Committee divided. 

Ayes, 1

Graham Stringer 

Noes, 3

Mr Tim Boswell 

Dr Evan Harris 

Dr Brian Iddon

Paragraph 132 agreed to. 

Paragraph 133 read and agreed to. 

Paragraph 134 read. 

Amendment proposed, at the end of line 5 to insert “Given the increasingly hostile attitudes of both sides on 

this issue, it is vital that these two inquiries have at least one member each who is a reputable scientist, and is 

sceptical of anthropogenic climate change”.—(Graham Stringer.) 

Question put, That the Amendment be made. 

The Committee divided. 

Ayes, 1

Graham Stringer 

Noes, 3

Mr Tim Boswell 

Dr Evan Harris 

Dr Brian Iddon

Paragraphs 135 and 136 read and agreed to. 

Paragraph 137 read. 

Amendment proposed, after “answer” in line 3 add “Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, 

the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact.”—(Dr Evan Harris.) 

Question put, That the Amendment be made. 
54 The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 

The Committee divided. 

Ayes, 3

Mr Tim Boswell 

Dr Evan Harris 

Dr Brian Iddon 

Noes, 1

Graham Stringer 

Question put, That the paragraph, as amended, stand part of the Report. 

The Committee divided. 

Ayes, 3

Mr Tim Boswell 

Dr Evan Harris 

Dr Brian Iddon 

Noes, 1

Graham Stringer 

Paragraph 138 read and agreed to. 

Summary brought up and read. 

Question put, That the summary be added to the Report. 

The Committee divided. 

Ayes, 3

Mr Tim Boswell 

Dr Evan Harris 

Dr Brian Iddon 

Noes, 1

Graham Stringer 

Motion made, and Question put, That the Report be the Eighth Report of the Committee to the House. 

The Committee divided. 

Ayes, 3

Mr Tim Boswell 

Dr Evan Harris 

Dr Brian Iddon 

Noes, 1

Graham Stringer 

Resolved, That the Report be the Eighth Report of the Committee to the House. 

Ordered, That the Chair make the Report to the House. 

Ordered, That embargoed copies of the Report be made available, in accordance with the provisions of 

Standing Order No. 134. 

Written evidence was ordered to be reported to the House for printing with the Report, together with written 

evidence reported and ordered to be published on 24 February and 1 March 2010. 

Written evidence was ordered to be reported to the House for placing in the Library and Parliamentary 

Archives. 

[The Committee adjourned 
The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 55

Witnesses 

Wednesday 1 March 2010 

The Rt Hon Lord Lawson of Blaby, Chairman, and Dr Benny Peiser, Director, 

Global Warming Policy Foundation Ev 2

Richard Thomas CBE, former Information Commissioner Ev 11

Professor Edward Acton, Vice-Chancellor, University of East Anglia and

Professor Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit Ev 27

Sir Muir Russell, Head of the Independent Climate Change E-Mails Review Ev 41

Professor John Beddington, Government Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor 

Julia Slingo OBE, Chief Scientist, Met Office, and Professor Bob Watson, Chief 

Scientist, Defra Ev 58

List of written evidence 

1 Andrew Montford Ev 159 

2 Anne Stallybrass Ev 169 

3 Aporia Ev 98 

4 Climate Change E-Mails Review Team Ev 39 

5 Clive Menzies Ev 93 

6 David Andrew Cockroft Ev 168 

7 David Holland Ev 115 

8 David Shaw Ev 99 

9 Douglas J. Keenan Ev 181 

10 Dr. Benny Peiser Ev 164 

11 Dr. D. R. Keiller Ev 103 

12 Dr. Michael Simons Ev 97 

13 Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen Ev 124, Ev 127 

14 Dr. Timothy J. Osborn Ev 129 

15 Edward Dilley Ev 76 

16 Eric Rasmusen Ev 89 

17 G R Ryan Ev 78 

18 Geoffrey Sherrington Ev 78 

19 Global Warming Policy Foundation Ev 1 

20 Godfrey Bloom MEP Ev 92 

21 Ian Goddard Ev 82 

22 Institute of Physics Ev 167 

23 J Ronan Ev 197 
56 The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 

24 John F Kelly Ev 191 

25 John Graham-Cumming Ev 195 

26 John Wadsworth Ev 81 

27 Lalu Hanuman Ev 81 

28 Martin Brumby Ev 82 

29 Met Office Ev 46, Ev 64 

30 Mike Haseler Ev 133 

31 Nicholas Barnes and David Jones Ev 197 

32 Peabody Energy Company Ev 191 

33 Peter Sinclair Ev 82 

34 Peter Taylor Ev 186 

35 Phillip Bratby Ev 90 

36 Professor Darrel Ince Ev 152 

37 Professor Hans von Storch and Dr. Myles R. Allen Ev 172 

38 Professor John Beddington, Government Chief Scientific Adviser Ev 45, Ev 64 

39 Professor Peter Cox Ev 132 

40 Professor Ross McKitrick Ev 140 

41 Public Interest Research Centre Ev 176 

42 Research Councils UK Ev 175 

43 Richard S Courtney Ev 68 

44 Richard Thomas CBE Ev 7 

45 Richard Tyrwhitt-Drake Ev 162 

46 Roger Helmer MEP Ev 85 

47 Ronald K Bolton Ev 119, Ev 123 

48 Royal Society of Chemistry Ev 170 

49 Royal Statistical Society Ev 185 

50 Stephen McIntyre Ev 82, Ev 144 

51 Stephen Prower Ev 86 

52 Steven Mosher Ev 151 

53 Stuart Huggett Ev 77 

54 Susan Ewens Ev 83 

55 University of East Anglia Ev 16, Ev 17, Ev 25, Ev 34, Ev 37, Ev 38 

56 Walter Radtke Ev 77 

57 Warwick Hughes Ev 153 
The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 57

List of unprinted evidence 

The following written evidence has been reported to the House, but has not been printed 

and copies have been placed in the House of Commons Library, where they may be 

inspected by Members. Other copies are in the Parliamentary Archives 

(www.parliament.uk/archives), and are available to the public for inspection. Requests for 

inspection should be addressed to The Parliamentary Archives, Houses of Parliament, 

London SW1A 0PW (tel. 020 7219 3074; e-mail archives@parliament.uk). Opening hours are 

from 9.30 am to 5.00 pm on Mondays to Fridays. 

CRU 27 The Global Warming Policy Foundation annexes 

CRU 58/58a Dr Nigel Dudley memoranda 
58 The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 

List of Reports from the Committee during 

the current Parliament 

The reference number of the Government’s response to each Report is printed in brackets 

after the HC printing number. 

Session 2009–10 

First Report The work of the Committee in 2008–09 HC 103

Second Report Evidence Check 1: Early Literacy Interventions HC 44 (HC 385)

Third Report The Government’s review of the principles applying to the 

treatment of independent scientific advice provided to government 

HC 158-I (HC 384)

Fourth Report Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy HC 45

Fifth Report The Regulation of Geoengineering HC 221

Sixth Report The impact of spending cuts on science and scientific research HC 335-I

Seventh Report Bioengineering HC 220

Eighth Report The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at 

the University of East Anglia 

HC 387-I

Session 2008–09 

First Report Re-skilling for recovery: After Leitch, implementing skills and 

training policies 

HC 48–I (HC 365)

Second Report The Work of the Committee 2007–08 HC 49

Third Report DIUS’s Departmental Report 2008 HC 51–I (HC 383)

Fourth Report Engineering: turning ideas into reality HC 50–I (HC 759)

Fifth Report Pre-appointment hearing with the Chair-elect of the Economic and 

Social Research Council, Dr Alan Gillespie CBE 

HC 505

Sixth Report Pre-appointment hearing with the Chair-elect of the Biotechnology 

and Biological Sciences Research Council, Professor Sir Tom Blundell 

HC 506

Seventh Report Spend, spend, spend? – The mismanagement of the Learning and 

Skills Council’s capital programme in further education colleges 

HC 530 (HC 989)

Eighth Report Putting Science and Engineering at the Heart of Government Policy HC 168–I (HC 1036)

Ninth Report Pre-appointment hearing with the Chair-elect of the Science and 

Technology Facilities Council, Professor Michael Sterling 

HC 887

Tenth Report Sites of Special Scientific Interest HC 717 (HC 990)

Eleventh Report Students and Universities HC 170–I (HC 991)

Session 2007–08 

First Report UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation HC 185 (HC 459)

Second Report The work and operation of the Copyright Tribunal HC 245 (HC 637)

Third Report Withdrawal of funding for equivalent or lower level qualifications 

(ELQs) 

HC 187–I (HC 638)

Fourth Report Science Budget Allocations HC 215 (HC 639)

Fifth Report Renewable electricity-generation technologies HC 216–I (HC 1063) 

Sixth Report Biosecurity in UK research laboratories HC 360–I (HC 1111)
The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 59

Seventh Report Pre-legislative Scrutiny of the Draft Apprenticeships Bill HC 1062–I 

(HC (2008–09)262)

First Special 

Report 

The Funding of Science and Discovery Centres: Government 

Response to the Eleventh Report from the Science and Technology 

Committee, Session 2006–07 

HC 214

Session 2007–08 (Continued) 

Second Special 

Report 

The Last Report: Government Response to the Thirteenth Report 

from the Science and Technology Committee, Session 2006–07 

HC 244

Fourth Special 

Report 

Investigating the Oceans: Government Response to the Science and 

Technology Committee’s Tenth Report of Session 2006–07 

HC 506 

[incorporating 

HC 469–i]