Table Of ContentmCOlUKX-mo) mGmr olanlaalelats
sYeit=]ale=mr-]ale iKm reavne) }(ey e)
Committee
sMal-melKialeciela-meyi
a ilaatchtcme cit: Mmacelonmaal=
Climatic Research Unit
at the University of
eC awNaleilr e
Eighth Report of Session 2009-10
Volume Il
HC 387-Il
22503097458
House of Commons
Science and Technology
Committee
The disclosure of
climate data from the
Climatic Research Unit
at the University of
East Anglia
Eighth Report of Session 2009-10
Volume Il
Oral and written evidence
Ordered by The House of Commons
to be printed 24 March 2010
a Esvrse 5 fs Oe gut if 366. ts a So wee
Teacter Oy mea e ae 4 aS a
MEDICINE & Soc Ty
oe HC 387-II
Published on 31 March 2010
by authority of the House of Commons
London: The Stationery Office Limited
The Science and Technology Committee
The Science and Technology Committee is appointed by the House of Commons
to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Government Office
for Science. Under arrangements agreed by the House on 25 June 2009 the
Science and Technology Committee was established on 1 October 2009 with the
same membership and Chairman as the former Innovation, Universities, Science
and Skills Committee and its proceedings were deemed to have been in respect
of the Science and Technology Committee.
Current membership
Mr Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)(Chair)
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)
Mr Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)
Mr lan Cawsey (Labour, Brigg & Goole)
Mrs Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)
Dr Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West & Abingdon)
Dr Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)
Mr Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool! South)
Dr Doug Naysmith (Labour, Bristol North West)
Dr Bob Spink (Independent, Castle Point)
lan Stewart (Labour, Eccles)
Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)
Dr Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton Kemptown)
Mr Rob Wilson (Conservative, Reading East)
Powers
The Committee is one of the departmental Select Committees, the powers of
which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in
SO No.152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk
Publications
The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery
Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press
notices) are on the Internet at http://www.parliament.uk/science
A list of reports from the Committee in this Parliament is included at the back of
this volume.
Committee staff
The current staff of the Committee are: Glenn McKee (Clerk); Richard Ward
(Second Clerk); Dr Christopher Tyler (Committee Specialist); Xameerah Malik
(Committee Specialist); Andy Boyd (Senior Committee Assistant); Camilla Brace
(Committee Assistant); Dilys Tonge (Committee Assistant); Melanie Lee
(Committee Assistant); Jim Hudson (Committee Support Assistant); and Becky
Jones (Media Officer).
Contacts
All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Science and
Technology Committee, Committee Office, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The
telephone number for general inquiries is: 020 7219 2793; the Committee’s e-
mail address is: [email protected].
en gest cal
Witnesses
Wednesday 1 March 2010
Page
The Rt Hon Lord Lawson of Blaby, Chairman, and Dr Benny Peiser, Director,
Global Warming Policy Foundation Ev2
Richard Thomas CBE, former Information Commissioner Ev 11
Professor Edward Acton, Vice-Chancellor, University of East Anglia and
Professor Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit Ev 27
Sir Muir Russell, Head of the Independent Climate Change E-Mails Review Ev 41
Professor John Beddington, Government Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor
Julia Slingo OBE, Chief Scientist, Met Office, and Professor Bob Watson, Chief
Scientist, Defra Ev 58
List of written evidence
1 Andrew Montford Ev 159
2 Anne Stallybrass Ev 169
3 Aporia Ev 98
4 Climate Change E-Mails Review Team Ev 39
5 Clive Menzies Ev 93
6 David Andrew Cockroft Ev 168
7 David Holland Ev 145
8 David Shaw Ev 99
9 Douglas J. Keenan Ev 181
10 +ODr. Benny Peiser Ev 164
11. Dr. D.R. Keiller Ev 103
12. Dr. Michael Simons Ev 97
13. Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen Ev 124, Ev 127
14 ~—‘—Dr. Timothy J. Osborn Ev 129
15. Edward Dilley Ev 76
16 Eric Rasmusen Ev 89
17. GRRyan Ev 78
18 Geoffrey Sherrington Ev 78
19 Global Warming Policy Foundation Ev 1
20 Godfrey Bloom MEP Ev 92
21. ~lan Goddard Ev 82
22 Institute of Physics Ev 167
23. JRonan Ev 197
24 John F Kelly Ev 191
25 John Graham-Cumming Ev 195
26 John Wadsworth Ev 81
27
Lalu Hanuman Ev 81
28
Martin Brumby Ev 82
29 Met Office Ev 46, Ev 64
30 Mike Haseler Ev 133
31
Nicholas Barnes and David Jones Ev 197
32 Peabody Energy Company Ev 191
33 Peter Sinclair Ev 82
34 Peter Taylor Ev 186
35 Phillip Bratby Ev 90
36
Professor Darrel Ince Ev 152
37 Professor Hans von Storch and Dr. Myles R. Allen Ev 172
38 Professor John Beddington, Government Chief Scientific Adviser Ev 45, Ev 64
39 Professor Peter Cox Ev 132
40
Professor Ross McKitrick Ev 140
AI
Public Interest Research Centre Ev 176
42
Research Councils UK Ev 175
43
Richard S Courtney Ev 68
44
Richard Thomas CBE Ev7
45 Richard Tyrwhitt-Drake Ev 162
46 Roger Helmer MEP Ev 85
47
Ronald K Bolton EV ITY, Gvies
48 Royal Society of Chemistry Ev 170
49 Royal Statistical Society Ev 185
50 Stephen Mcintyre Ev 82, Ev 144
51
Stephen Prower Ev 86
52
Steven Mosher Ev 151
53
Stuart Huggett Ev 77
54
Susan Ewens Ev 83
55 University of East Anglia Ev 16, Ev 17, Ev 25, Ev 34, Ev 37, Ev 38
56 Walter Radtke Ev 77
57 Warwick Hughes Ev 153
List of unprinted evidence
The following written evidence has been reported to the House, but has not been printed
and copies have been placed in the House of Commons Library, where they may be
inspected by Members. Other copies are in the Parliamentary Archives
(www.parliament.uk/archives), and are available to the public for inspection. Requests for
inspection should be addressed to The Parliamentary Archives, Houses of Parliament,
London SW1A OPW (tel. 020 7219 3074; e-mail [email protected]). Opening hours are
from 9.30 am to 5.00 pm on Mondays to Fridays.
CRU 27 The Global Warming Policy Foundation annexes
CRU 58/58a Dr Nigel Dudley memoranda
OTE. fb fF ‘
uy Gree
4
Sta et lhe la tte eerie ee FO ee +7 then simt ansA tm enen oone nant
: ie
nasi sie Aad wat nie eaviol ort hiatal nead zat bin et iv
od yar yal mor jmerdid anerimoD Yo eeueh ant ol beselq aged seme
rOafv ilMaByLs 5, HOHY s.M tjebteN TqEte esst vot asrit de ie ft 5o4f6 sidaesliiqaiv>e ovej abyrao, eavaineiend@moahym, pd>ps enes n
Ingest neM e‘in ol 2evirioy. Meironisihey atl 02 beeeerbbs ad t
& 2duertapeientiatd Ole ‘isteretragi@ieayirions Nert-o PCOE €1 57 O80 Jet) WR
SIF OF nenonte no diab evy
. ZHANG naigebewie? ilo: enor >
: oes -sbnsromem yaibud isg
= i ‘ ? a “/ 7
janet). and Or yl Alien
nimerrt. Cet Scents advise
Science and Technology Committee: Evidence Ev 1
Oral evidence
Taken before the Science and Technology Committee
(Science and Technology Sub-Committee)
on Monday 1 March 2010
Members present
Mr Phil Willis, in the Chair
Mr Tim Boswell Ian Stewart
Dr Evan Harris Graham Stringer
Dr Doug Naysmith
Memorandum submitted by The Global Warming Policy Foundation (CRU 27)
INQUIRY INTO THE DISCLOSURE OF CLIMATE DATA FROM THE CLIMATIC RESEARCH
UNIT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA
1. The Global Warming Policy Foundation is a registered charity (no 1131448) of an educational nature.
Further details may be obtained from our website, www.thegwpf.org. The Foundation’s Chairman, the
Rt Hon Lord Lawson of Blaby, and its Director, Dr Benny Peiser, will be happy to give oral evidence at the
Committee’s projected March evidence session in elaboration of this brief written submission. If invited, we
may wish to be accompanied, if the Committee agrees, by an expert in one of the matters at issue. We have
no declarable interests.
2. On the first of your three questions, we believe there are four distinct issues:
(i) Have the CRU scientists been manipulating the raw surface temperature data in a way that is less
than wholly objective and dispassionate?
(ii) Have they refused dissenting scientists and/or other outsiders with a bona fide interest in global
warming access to the raw data, contrary to the proper canons of scientific research and to the
demands of scientific integrity?
(iii) Have they been improperly seeking to avoid answering Freedom of Information Act requests?
(iv) Have they actively sought to prevent papers by dissenting scientists, statisticians, or other informed
commentators from being peer-reviewed and/or published, again contrary to the proper canons of
scientific research and to the demands of scientific integrity?
3. We believe that there is compelling evidence both independent of the leaked email exchanges and
arising from those emails to suggest that the answers to (11), (111) and (iv) above are clearly “yes”. As to (i)
above, we believe that the jury is still out, although the motive for the improper behaviour involved in (11),
(iii) and (iv) above needs to be investigated, as it may well have a bearing on the answer to this. Moreover,
we are disturbed by the CRU scientists’ treatment of the so-called divergence problem. That is the fact that,
for that period of time where both a proxy global temperature series and a recorded global temperature series
are available, the two series markedly diverge. This clearly suggests either that the proxy series is unreliable
or that the recorded series is unreliable (or possibly both: the point is that they cannot both be true). The
CRU scientists’ attempt to hide the problem by concealing the divergence demonstrates, we believe, a lack
of integrity.
4. On the second of your three questions, we believe that the terms of reference of the Muir Russell inquiry
are almost, but not entirely, adequate. Lord Lawson has written to Sir Muir Russell, on behalf of the GWPF,
setting out how we believe the terms of reference (and the modus operandi of the inquiry) should be
strengthened. Lord Lawson’s letter, and Sir Muir Russell’s reply, are appended as an annexe to this
submission. !
5. Lastly, on the third of your three questions, there are, in fact, four (not two) other international data
sets, all based in the United States. Two of them—NASA and NOAA—are neither wholly independent of
each other (unsurprisingly, since they are both US Government agencies) nor wholly independent of the
CRU set, as indeed some oft he leaked email traffic indicates. The third, and fourth, which—unlike CRU,
NASA and NOAA—use not surface weather stations but satellite observations, are compiled by the
' Not printed
Ev2 Science and Technology Committee: Evidence
University of Alabama at Hunstville (UAH) and Remote Sensing Systems (RSS). They are entirely
independent of the CRU. They use the same satellite data as each other but different methodology and
produce similar results to each other, which differ from those of the CRU.
The Rt Hon Lord Lawson of Blaby, Chairman
The Global Warming Policy Foundation
February 2010
Witnesses: Rt Hon Lord Lawson of Blaby, a Member of the House of Lords, Chairman, and Dr Benny Peiser,
Director, Global Warming Policy Foundation, gave evidence.
Q1 Chairman: Could I welcome our first panel of when we see the membership of the Inquiry. As you
witnesses to this one-off evidence session on the know, already one member has had to resign because
disclosure of climate data from the Climatic he had already prejudged the issue. It was the editor-
Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, Lord in-chief of Nature, who had written an editorial
Lawson of Blaby and Dr Benny Peiser of the Global saying these people are absolutely in the clear and
Warming Policy Foundation, and to say to yourself, those who criticise them are paranoid; that was the
Lord Lawson and Dr Peiser, that the whole purpose word that was used in that leading article. To have
of this session, given the shortage of time of the him as an impartial member of the committee was
Committee, is to examine the events surrounding the ridiculous, so he was out.
disclosure of climate data from the Climate Research
Unit at the University of East Anglia, to examine the
Q4 Chairman: He has gone.
implications of the disclosure on scientific integrity
and to examine the independent review and the steps Lord Lawson of Blaby: He has gone, but there is still
taken by the University since the disclosure. We are Sir Geoffrey Bolton, who is an extremely eminent
not here to discuss whether climate change is real or geologist; but he is a committed climate alarmist,
not, we are here to talk about what has happened at and Sir Muir Russell said that he did not want
the CRU. I wonder if I could start, therefore, with anybody who had a firm view on the issue. He is a
you, Lord Lawson, and thank you very much indeed committed climate alarmist. He is perfectly entitled
for coming this afternoon. The Independent Inquiry, to his view, but he has written and spoken on that.
which has been set up under the leadership of Sir He is also, of course, a very distinguished alumnus of
Muir Russell, has now published its membership the University of East Anglia and the environmental
and terms of reference. Do you have confidence in it? section of that where the CRU comes from. The first
Do you think that is about right? 18 years of his career, his formative years, were there.
Lord Lawson of Blaby: 1 am sorry, first of all, thank All I would say is I think that it shows us, at the very
you very much for inviting me to this session. least, a certain carelessness to have packed the
committee in this way, and it does not create
Q2 Chairman: Not at all. confidence.
Lord Lawson of Blaby: \ absolutely realise that the
pressure of time, because the dissolution of
Q5 Chairman: Is that what you meant by “it was
Parliament is not that far away, means that you have
CRU centric’?
had to cut this inquiry much shorter than you would
Lord Lawson of Blaby: No, that was a different
otherwise have done. I think it is a pity, because I
point. That was before I knew the composition of the
think there are some other people who have given
committee. By “CRU centric” what I meant was it
you some excellent evidence.
was too much concerned about the CRU scientists
and not perhaps, I feared, enough attention paid to
Q3 Chairman: We have had 55 pieces of evidence. We
other scientists who were trying to get their views
would have liked to invite them all, but you are here,
published on this.
so can you answer that specific question?
Lord Lawson of Blaby: \ will be very short. I sent Sir
Muir Russell a letter on behalf of the Global Q6 Chairman: Some would say, Lord Lawson, it is
Warming Policy Foundation in January saying that because you are perhaps losing the argument here in
I thought, on the whole, the terms of reference were terms of the panel that you are criticising them, is
reasonably okay, that they needed to be extended to that fair?
include more fully the issue of the dissenting Lord Lawson of Blaby: No, the criticisms I made of
scientists who had been allegedly prevented from the composition of the panel are a matter for regret
having their papers published. That was a very, very that I had to make these criticisms, because I think it
serious part of the charges that were laid and they will reduce the authority of anything which emerges
needed to look into that more than what actually from that independent review. I was the first person
simply emerged from the CRU. I was more
to call for an independent inquiry, I think.
concerned about the openness and transparency. I
said there should be public hearings, like you are
having here—I think that is very, very important— Q7 Chairman: You are happy with the Chairman?
and I regret the fact that it appears that they do not Lord Lawson of Blaby: 1 have nothing against the
intend to do this. | am now much more concerned Chairman, no.
