The Disclosure of Climate Data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia
Author | : Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Science and Technology Committee |
Publisher | : The Stationery Office |
Total Pages | : 68 |
Release | : 2010 |
ISBN-10 | : 0215553365 |
ISBN-13 | : 9780215553362 |
Rating | : 4/5 (65 Downloads) |
Download or read book The Disclosure of Climate Data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia written by Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Science and Technology Committee and published by The Stationery Office. This book was released on 2010 with total page 68 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: In this report on the disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, the Science and Technology Committee calls for the climate science community to become more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies. On the accusations relating to Professor Phil Jones's refusal to share raw data and computer codes, the Committee finds there was no systematic attempt to mislead and considers that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community, but those practices need to change. The Committee welcomes the appointment of the independent Climate Change E-mails Review led by Sir Muir Russell to investigate fully the allegations against CRU. The Committee has not looked at the science produced by CRU and it will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel, announced by the University on 22 March, to determine whether the work of CRU has been soundly built. On the mishandling of Freedom of Information (FoI) requests, the Committee considers that much of the responsibility should lie with the University, not CRU. The leaked emails appear to show a culture of non-disclosure at CRU and instances where information may have been deleted to avoid disclosure, particularly to climate change sceptics. The failure of the University to grasp fully the potential damage this could do and did was regrettable. The University needs to re-assess how it can support academics whose expertise in FoI requests is limited.