The CRU enquiry into the climategate emails
could get interesting with this submision from the Institute of Physics:
What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?
1. 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.
2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined
and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable 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 lack of compliance
has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well
beyond the CRU itself – most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number
of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the
IPCC’s conclusions on climate change.
3. It is important to recognise that there are two completely different categories
of data set that are involved in the CRU e-mail exchanges:
· those compiled from direct instrumental measurements of land and ocean surface temperatures
such as the CRU, GISS and NOAA data sets; and
· historic temperature reconstructions from measurements of ‘proxies’, for example,
tree-rings.
4. The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion
that 20th century warming is unprecedented. Published reconstructions may represent
only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and
the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes
may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind
some of the (rejected) requests for further information.
5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions
and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example,
the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for
recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.
6. There is also reason for concern at the intolerance to challenge displayed in the
e-mails. This impedes the process of scientific ’self correction’, which is vital
to the integrity of the scientific process as a whole, and not just to the research
itself. In that context, those CRU e-mails relating to the peer-review process suggest
a need for a review of its adequacy and objectivity as practised in this field and
its potential vulnerability to bias or manipulation.
7. Fundamentally, we consider it should be inappropriate for the verification of the
integrity of the scientific process to depend on appeals to Freedom of Information
legislation. Nevertheless, the right to such appeals has been shown to be necessary.
The e-mails illustrate the possibility of networks of like-minded researchers effectively
excluding newcomers. Requiring data to be electronically accessible to all, at the
time of publication, would remove this possibility.
8. As a step towards restoring confidence in the scientific process and to provide
greater transparency in future, the editorial boards of scientific journals should
work towards setting down requirements for open electronic data archiving by authors,
to coincide with publication. Expert input (from journal boards) would be needed to
determine the category of data that would be archived. Much ‘raw’ data requires calibration
and processing through interpretive codes at various levels.
9. Where the nature of the study precludes direct replication by experiment, as in
the case of time-dependent field measurements, it is important that the requirements
include access to all the original raw data and its provenance, together with the
criteria used for, and effects of, any subsequent selections, omissions or adjustments.
The details of any statistical procedures, necessary for the independent testing and
replication, should also be included. In parallel, consideration should be given to
the requirements for minimum disclosure in relation to computer modelling.
Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on
3 December 2009 by UEA adequate?
10. The scope of the UEA review is, not inappropriately, restricted to the allegations
of scientific malpractice and evasion of the Freedom of Information Act at the CRU.
However, most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other
leading institutions involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate
change. In so far as those scientists were complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices,
there is need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in
this field.
11. The first of the review’s terms of reference is limited to: “…manipulation or
suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice…” The term
‘acceptable’ is not defined and might better be replaced with ‘objective’.
12. The second of the review’s terms of reference should extend beyond reviewing the
CRU’s policies and practices to whether these have been breached by individuals, particularly
in respect of other kinds of departure from objective scientific practice, for example,
manipulation of the publication and peer review system or allowing pre-formed conclusions
to override scientific objectivity.
How independent are the other two international data sets?
13. Published data sets are compiled from a range of sources and are subject to processing
and adjustments of various kinds. Differences in judgements and methodologies used
in such processing may result in different final data sets even if they are based
on the same raw data. Apart from any communality of sources, account must be taken
of differences in processing between the published data sets and any data sets on
which they draw.
