# 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 vi ewed at www.iop. org

10 February 201010 February 2010

Clerk to the Science and Technology Committee

Committee Office

7 Millbank

House of Commons

London SW1P 3JA

Dear Sir/Ma dam

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

The Institute of Physics is a scie n tific c harity devoted to increasing the pr actice, understanding and application of ph ysics. It has a worldwide membership of over 36,000 and is a leading communicator of physics-related science to all a udiences, from specialists through to governme nt and the g e neral public. Its publish i ng company, IOP Publishing, is a world leader in scientific publishing and t he electronic

disseminatio n of phy sics.

The Institute is pleased t o submit its views to inform the House of Commo ns Science and Technology Co mmittee’s inquiry , ‘The disclo sure of clim ate data fro m the

Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia’.

The attache d annex details our resp onse to the questions listed in the ca ll for evidence, which was pr epared with input from the Institute’s Science Bo ard, and its Energy Sub-group.

If you need any further information on the points raised, plea se do not he sitate to

contact me.

Yours faithf ully

Professor Peter Main Director, Education and Science

2

## The disclosure of climate d a ta from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia

What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scie ntific

research?

1. The Instit ute is con c e r ned that, u n less the d i sclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implication s arise for the int egrity of scientific

research in t h is field and for the credi b ility of the scientifi c method as pract i sed in th is

context.

2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide pri m a facie evid ence of

determined and co-ordin ated refusals to comply with honourable scien tific tradition s and freedom of information law. Th e principle t hat scient ist s should be willing to expose their ideas and r e sults to ind ependent te sting and re plication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. Th e lack of compliance has been co nfirmed by the findings of the Infor m ation Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself – most of the e-mails were exchanged with

researchers in a number of other inte rnational institutions who are also inv o lved in

the formulation of the IPCC's conclu sions on climate change.

3. It is impor t ant to recognise that there are two completely different categories of

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

• those compiled from direct instrumen t al measurements of land and ocean surface temperatures such as the C RU, GISS a nd NOAA d a ta sets; and

• historic tem perature reconstruction s from measu r ements of 'proxies', for example, tre e -rings.

4. The seco nd category relating to pr oxy reconstructions are t h e basis for the

conclusion t hat 20th cen t ury warming is unprece dented. Published recon s tructions

may represe n t only a part of the raw data available and may be sensit ive to the

choices ma de and the statistica l techniques use d . Different choices, omissions or statistical pr ocesses may lead to different conclu sions. This possibility was evidently

the reason b e hind some of the (reject ed) requests for further information.

5. The e-mails reveal do ubts as to th e reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise quest i ons as to th e way in whi c h they have been represented; for example, th e apparent su ppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy re sults for

recent deca des that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature

measureme n ts.

6. There is a l so reason f o r concern a t the intolera nce to challenge displa yed in the e-mails. This impedes t he process of scient i fi c ' s elf correction', which is vital to the integrity of the scient ific process a s a whole, and not just to the research itself. In t h a t context, those CRU e-mails relating to the peer-review process suggest a need for a review of its adequacy and objectivit y as practised in this f i eld and its pot ential vulnerability to bias or manipulation.

37. Fundamentally, we consider it sho u ld be inapp ropriate for t he verification of the integrity of the scient i fic process to d epend on ap peals to Fre edom of Information legislat ion. Nevertheless, the right t o such appe als has bee n shown to be necessar y

. The e-mails illustrate t h e possibi lity of networks o f like-minde d researche r s effectively excluding n e wcomers. Requiring data to be ele c tronically accessible to all, at the time of publi c ation, woul d remove thi s possib ility.

8. As a step towards rest oring confid ence in the scientif ic pro c ess and to provide greater transparency in future, the e d itoria l boar ds of scientif ic journals should work

towards sett ing down requirements for open electronic data a r chiving by authors, to

coincide wit h publicatio n. Expert input (from journal boards) would be needed to determine the category of data that would be arch ived. Much ‘raw’ data requires

calibration a n d processing through interpretive codes at various levels.

9. Where the nature of t h e study precludes dire ct replicatio n by experi m e n t, as in the

case of time -dependent field measurements, it is important that the requir e ments

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

criteria used for, and eff e cts of, any subsequent selection s , o m issions or adjustments. The details of any statistical pro c e d ures, nece ssary for the independen t testing and r eplication, should also b e included. I n parallel, consideration should be given to the requirements for minimum disclosur e in relation to computer modelling.

Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review a nnounced on

3 December 2009 b y UEA adequate?

10. The sco pe of the UEA review is, not inapprop riately, restricted to the a llegations

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 nu mber of other leading instit utions involved in the for m ulation of the IPCC's conclusion s o n climate change. In so far as those scientists were complicit in the a lle ged scient ific malpractice s , there is n eed for a wider inquiry into the integ r ity of the scientific process in t h is field.

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

... m a nipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientif ic practice..

. ” The term 'acceptable' is not define d and might better be replaced with ' objective'.

12. The second of the r e view’s terms of reference should extend beyond reviewing the CRU's p o licies and practices to whether these have been breached by individuals, particularly in respect of other kinds of departure from objective scientific practice, for ex ample, manipulation of the public ation and pe er rev i ew system or allowing pre

- formed conclusion s to o v erride scie n tific objectivity.

How indep endent are the other tw o international data sets?

13. Publishe d data sets are compiled from a range of source s and are su bject to processing and adjustments of various kinds. Dif f erences in judgements and methodologies used in such processing may res u lt in differe nt final data sets even if they are based on the sa me raw data

. Apart from any commu n ality of sou r ces, account must be taken of difference s in proce ssing between the publishe d data sets and any data sets on w h ich they draw.

4

### The Institute of Physics is a scienti fic charity devoted to increasing the practice, understanding and applicati on of ph y s ics. It has a w o rldw ide membership of over 36,000 and is a leading communicator of ph ysicsrelated science to all audiences, from specialists through to government and the general public. Its publishing company

, IOP Publishing, is a

w o rld leader in scientific publishing and the electronic dissemination of ph ysics.



# 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