Following up on claims of scientific impropriety at the University of East Anglia, the Science and Technology Committee of Britain’s House of Commons produced a report on the leaked emails. The report includes consideration of datasets, freedom of information issues, and independent inquiries. The report’s three conclusions clearly express how the content of these emails does not undermine climate science, or does it suggest that action should not be taken on climate change. I will quote them verbatim and in full, to avoid any appearance of selective editing:
- “The focus on Professor Jones and [Climate Research Unit] 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.
- 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.
- 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.”
As they say, their purpose was not primarily to study the science produced by the CRU. Other examinations of that are ongoing. Still, it seems clear from this that claims made by climate change delayers that these emails revealed a massive conspiracy seem to be clearly contradicted by these findings.
Evan Harris, one member of the committee, successfully moved an amendment to the report expressing that: “the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact.”
There are many uncertainties that remain about the nature and future of the climate system, and it is essential to both scientific and political processes that the scientific investigation of those things continue to take place in a rigorous, robust, and transparent way. At the same time, we mustn’t allow climate deniers to use any little ambiguity or issue that arises to suggest that the whole edifice of climate science has been undermined. We are rather too far along in the research now for such claims to be credible.