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.
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
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 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:
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 Vice-Chancellor'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 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 e-mails 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 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 IPCC[171]
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 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 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, peer-reviewed 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 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.
141 Q 129 Back
142
www.cce-review.org/About.php Back
143
Ev 39 Back
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 Back
145
Q 5, Ev 1, annex containing letter dated 26 January 2010 from
the Foundation to Sir Muir Russell (not printed) Back
146
Q 3 Back
147
Ev 161, paras 22 and 24 Back
148
Ev 139, para 27 Back
149
Ev 140, para 3.2 Back
150
Ev 172, para 12 Back
151
Ev 45, para 7 Back
152
Ev 132, para 2 Back
153
Q 163 Back
154
Q 166 Back
155
Ev 40 Back
156
"Dr Philip Campbell withdraws from the Review", Independent
Climate Change Email Review News release, 12 February 2010,
www.cce-review.org/News.php Back
157
As above Back
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) Back
159
"Allegations of bias against Review member rejected",
Independent Climate Change Email Review News release, 15
February 2010,www.cce-review.org/News.php Back
160
As above Back
161
Q 160 Back
162
Q 3 Back
163
Ev 161, para 23 Back
164
Q 172 Back
165
Q 176 Back
166
Ev 40, para 4 Back
167
UEA, 11 February 2010, www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/New+scientific+assessment+of+climatic+research+publications+announced Back
168
"CRU Scientific Assessment Panel announced", UEA Press
Release, 22 March 2010, www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAPannounce Back
169
As above Back
170
Q 198 Back
171
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Back
172
Ev 132, para 1 Back
173
Ev 171, para 4 Back
174
For examples, see Ev 68 [Richard S Courtney]; Ev 77 [Walter Radtke];
Ev 78 [Geoffrey Sherrington]; and Ev 93 [Clive Menzies] Back
175
Ev 92, para 21 Back
176
Ev 130, para 3 Back
177
Ev 172, para 1 Back
178
As above Back
179
Q 194 Back
180
Ev 46, para 1 Back
181
Q 197 Back
182
Q 198 Back
183
Q 181 Back
|
