The disclosure of 

 climate data from the 

 Climatic Research 

 Unit at the University 

 of East Anglia 

 

Institute of Physics response to a House 

of Commons Science and Technology 

Committee call for evidence 

A full list of the Institute’s submissions to 

consultations and inquiries can be viewed at 

www.iop.org 

10 February 2010 
10 February 2010 

Clerk to the Science and Technology Committee 

Committee Office 

7 Millbank 

House of Commons 

London SW1P 3JA 

Dear Sir/Madam 

The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the 

University of East Anglia 

The Institute of Physics is a scientific charity devoted to increasing the practice, 

understanding and application of physics. It has a worldwide membership of over 

36,000 and is a leading communicator of physics-related science to all audiences, 

from specialists through to government and the general public. Its publishing 

company, IOP Publishing, is a world leader in scientific publishing and the electronic 

dissemination of physics.

The Institute is pleased to submit its views to inform the House of Commons Science 

and Technology Committee’s inquiry, ‘The disclosure of climate data from the 

Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia’. 

The attached annex details our response to the questions listed in the call for 

evidence, which was prepared with input from the Institute’s Science Board, and its 

Energy Sub-group. 

If you need any further information on the points raised, please do not hesitate to 

contact me. 

Yours faithfully 

Professor Peter Main

Director, Education and Science 

2
The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research 

Unit at the University of East Anglia 

What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific 

research? 

1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be 

forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific 

research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this 

context. 

2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of 

determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions

and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to 

expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which 

requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of 

compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. 

This extends well beyond the CRU itself – most of the e-mails were exchanged with 

researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in 

the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change. 

3. It is important to recognise that there are two completely different categories of 

data set that are involved in the CRU e-mail exchanges: 

• those compiled from direct instrumental measurements of land and ocean

surface temperatures such as the CRU, GISS and NOAA data sets; and 

• historic temperature reconstructions from measurements of 'proxies', for 

example, tree-rings. 

4. The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the 

conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. 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. 

5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and 

raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the 

apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for 

recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature 

measurements. 

6. There is also reason for concern at the intolerance to challenge displayed in the 

e-mails. This impedes the process of scientific 'self correction', which is vital to the 

integrity of the scientific process as a whole, and not just to the research itself. In that

context, those CRU e-mails relating to the peer-review process suggest a need for a 

review of its adequacy and objectivity as practised in this field and its potential 

vulnerability to bias or manipulation.

3
7. Fundamentally, we consider it should be inappropriate for the verification of the 

integrity of the scientific process to depend on appeals to Freedom of Information 

legislation. Nevertheless, the right to such appeals has been shown to be necessary. 

The e-mails illustrate the possibility of networks of like-minded researchers effectively 

excluding newcomers. Requiring data to be electronically accessible to all, at the 

time of publication, would remove this possibility.

8. As a step towards restoring confidence in the scientific process and to provide 

greater transparency in future, the editorial boards of scientific journals should work 

towards setting down requirements for open electronic data archiving by authors, to 

coincide with publication. Expert input (from journal boards) would be needed to 

determine the category of data that would be archived. Much ‘raw’ data requires 

calibration and processing through interpretive codes at various levels. 

9. Where the nature of the study precludes direct replication by experiment, as in the 

case of time-dependent field measurements, it is important that the requirements 

include access to all the original raw data and its provenance, together with the 

criteria used for, and effects of, any subsequent selections, omissions or 

adjustments. The details of any statistical procedures, necessary for the independent 

testing and replication, should also be included. In parallel, consideration should be 

given to the requirements for minimum disclosure in relation to computer modelling. 

Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 

3 December 2009 by UEA adequate? 

10. The scope of the UEA review is, not inappropriately, restricted to the allegations 

of scientific malpractice and evasion of the Freedom of Information Act at the CRU. 

However, most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other 

leading institutions involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate 

change. In so far as those scientists were complicit in the alleged scientific 

malpractices, there is need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific 

process in this field. 

11. The first of the review’s terms of reference is limited to: “...manipulation or 

suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice...” The term 

'acceptable' is not defined and might better be replaced with 'objective'. 

12. The second of the review’s terms of reference should extend beyond reviewing 

the CRU's policies and practices to whether these have been breached by 

individuals, particularly in respect of other kinds of departure from objective scientific 

practice, for example, manipulation of the publication and peer review system or 

allowing pre-formed conclusions to override scientific objectivity. 

How independent are the other two international data sets? 

13. Published data sets are compiled from a range of sources and are subject to 

processing and adjustments of various kinds. Differences in judgements and 

methodologies used in such processing may result in different final data sets even if 

they are based on the same raw data. Apart from any communality of sources, 

account must be taken of differences in processing between the published data sets 

and any data sets on which they draw. 

4
The Institute of Physics is a scientific charity devoted to increasing the 

practice, understanding and application of physics. It has a worldwide 

membership of over 36,000 and is a leading communicator of physicsrelated science to all audiences, from specialists through to government 

and the general public. Its publishing company, IOP Publishing, is a 

world leader in scientific publishing and the electronic dissemination of 

physics. 

76 Portland Place 

London W1B 1NT 

Tel: +44 (0) 20 7470 4800 

Fax: +44 (0) 20 7470 4848 

Email: physics@iop.org 

Website: www.iop.org

Registered Charity No. 293851 

5