As MIT released a new analysis which concludes that there is now a 9% chance that the global average surface temperature would increase by more than 7°C by the end of this century, compared with only a less than 1% chance that warming would be limited to below 3°C, the House of Commons science and technology committee held hearings yesterday on the University of East Anglia's climate research unit.
It is one of five investigations into the so-called "climategate" emails which have put climate scientists under intense focus since someone hacked into UEA's email server five months ago and published the CRU staff emails. Another investigation was announced by Edward Acton, UEA's vice chancellor at the hearing, this one to look into the science the CRU has produced.
A pro-science government
The UK parliament has generally supported the governments efforts to combat climate change—only 3 MP's voted against last year's climate bill but the mood was different in the hearing.
The questioning was pointed and direct, both to climate skeptics, and to former head of the CRU Phil Jones and Acton. The change is tone came mainly from the only former scientist on the committee, MP Graham Stringer, an analytical chemist.
The climate skeptics questioned at the beginning of the hearing, none of whom were climate scientists, played to their strength by not questioning the science but the methodology and procedures put in place at CRU.
They'd stressed that if Jones and colleagues had behaved properly, there would have been no freedom of information requests, implying there would be no leak and no inquiry, and putting the media scandal on climate scientists, not the people who hacked into UAE's email servers.
Jones' evidence
MP Ian Stewart, a well-known pro-science MP in the UK, started Jones's grilling by askeing some softball questions to allow Jones to make his main case: that the emails were personal; raw climate data was available from NASA and NOAA, it didn't have to come from CRU; all temperature series from other sources show similar increases in the last 100 years; and the global average temperature for the last three decades are the highest on record.
Jones started off by stating all his research was published in peer reviewed literature, the gold standard for checking scientific results.
An outside review
The crucial points for the scientific community rose however over comments made by the committee over the ability of outside researchers and members of the public to check CRU's scientific papers.
Jones explained that is what the peer review process for publishing papers was for, and that reanalyzing raw data wasn't traditionally done in the scientific community, particularly when weather station data is often covered by confidentiality agreements. Nor had any reviewer ever asked for the raw computer codes as a standard practice. "Maybe it should be, but it's not," he said.
In response Stringer quoted from Jone's emails to Warwick Hughes, a noted climate skeptic, in which Jones refused to provide Hughes the raw data. "Why should I make the data available when your aim is to find something wrong with it?" It said.
Stringer followed up by getting Jones to admit that the raw data that CRU used wasn't available to outside researchers, contrary to the initial statement that said the raw data was available from NASA and NOAA. So how can researchers replicate Jone's results? asked Stringer.
Jones admitted that he had "obviously written some very awful emails" but added "I don't think there is anything [in the emails] that supports the view I've been trying to pervert the peer-review process."
On questions related to why raw data at universities do not have to be permanently kept, Acton drew attention to the fact that universities do not have a remit to be "a national archive." Most universities follow a 3-5 year rule when archiving raw data unless researchers request otherwise.
The chair of the committee, Phil Willis, said "We can't understand why you wouldn't want to," archive raw data permanently.
Next witness
Former information commissioner Richard Thomas, was asked to put the 60 freedom of information requests that Jones delayed or blocked into context in the hearing. "Sixty doesn't strike me as a large number," he said. "The simplest approach where the requirements generate a defensive attitude… is proactive disclosure in the first place. Where there is no good reason, why not disclose it and avoid the hassle?"
Acton disagreed. The CRU only has 3 full-time employees, he said. "It is a very small unit...We are not a national archive, but a research unit. The manpower involved [in responding to FOI requests] is very considerable."
When Acton's turn came to talk about the UEA inquiry, by emphasizing the credibility of UEA's integrity as the heart of climategate in his responses to the MP's questions and in his written submission before the hearing, Acton upset Willis. "Surely scientific integrity on the world's leading global question should be the question. Have you not miserably failed?" he asked.
Muir Russell, former vice chancellor of Glasgow University, is heading UEA's inquiry into the hacked emails. MPs asked why the UEA's own internal enquiry into the climate scandal wasn't broader, and wasn't questioning "the science" of climate change. Why was there a separate inquiry into the science?
The reason this has caused so much interest around the world, is that it challenges the basic assumption of the majority of scientists," said Willis. "Yet you've ruled out an appraisal of the science work of CRU, although the vice chancellor is going to do that separately?"
Russell said he was asked to focus on the processes, and looked surprised that the Willis wanted the inquiry to look at the science. "Where would it end? What kind of questions would people ask?" said Russell.
A critical response
But it was written evidence submitted by the UK-based Institute of Physics that gathered attention in the media.
"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," said the IOP submission.
The IOP, which publishes a number of physics journals, recommended that "the editorial boards of scientific journals should work towards setting down requirements for open electronic data archiving by authors, to coincide with publication.""The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honorable 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 committee's report is expected before the UK's general election, scheduled sometime in June.
Paul Guinnessy
Related links Climategate hits Westminster: MPs spring a surprise The RegisterPhil Jones survives MPs' grilling over climate emails The GuardianClimategate scientist questioned in Parliament New ScientistScientist admits leaked emails were 'pretty awful' The Independent
