Damian Carrington 

‘Climategate’ report – live blog

Live coverage as Muir Russell review into University of East Anglia's hacked climate change emails delivers findings. With Damian Carrington
  
  

Hacked climate science emails 	: Porters Descending with Ice Core Samples
A scientist measures glacial ice on the slopes of Mt Sajama in Bolivia. Photograph: George Steinmetz/Corbis Photograph: George Steinmetz/Corbis

9.53am: Morning all. Today's the big day for "climategate", with the publication of the largest and final report on the controversy surrounding the emails leaked or stolen – no one knows – from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit.

The report itself will be released at 1pm UK time, and we'll have the news from David Adam, analysis from Fred Pearce, the report itself (all 500 pages or so) and then lots more reaction to follow.

But there's plenty to get through this morning – it's a long and rather sorry tale that raises some big questions about science itself. So I'll be looking at the allegations, what the Muir Russell inquiry was tasked with, the previous inquiries and more.

As a starter here are five of the key emails, with commentary by Fred Pearce, including the infamous "trick" to "hide the decline", which was anything but a trick. And here's my Q&A to get you up to speed for what will be a fascinating day

Please get in touch with your tips and comments, either in the comments below or via Twitter – @guardianeco.

10.13am: I'll be taking a swing round the web to see who is saying what shortly, but first let's start with what to look for in the Muir Russell report.

The science of global warming:This is not part of today's inquiry but even if it was the report couldn't do anything other than fully back the assertion that greenhouse gases emitted as a result of human activities are causing the world to warm. The allegations by former US vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin and other sceptics that the emails were a "smoking gun" – or even a "mushroom cloud" – showing global warming is a scam were themselves utterly bogus, as Fred Pearce comprehensively shows here.

Manipulation of data: The allegation is that the scientists fiddled their data to suit their global warming prejudices. A big part of that was an argument over the location of Chinese weather stations. Two previous inquiries rejected these charges, and Russell is likely to as well.

Access to data: The charge here is that the scientists worked to prevent people they didn't like getting their raw temperature data. The UK's information commissioner's office has already said FOI requests were "not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation". This will be a critical judgment for Russell.

Blocking other research: Did the scientists collaborate to prevent work they didn't agree with getting published? This is the other critical judgement for Russell.

10.50am: Russell's PR and UEA have done a great job in preventing any leaks ahead of the official publication – a sentence I write, as a journalist, with a grudging respect.

The BBC's Richard Black previews the report comprehensively, and AP does the same. Black's BBC colleague Roger Harrabin has been diving into the detail of a previous inquiry into the climate emails – the Science Appraisal Panel led by Lord Oxburgh. Harrabin says the terms of reference of that review were switched – sleight of hand according to MP Phil Willis – from being about the quality of the science to the integrity of the science, ie from "was the science right?" to "was it carried out correctly?", a distinction not lost on critics such as Climate Audit blogger Stephen McIntyre. We'll be getting McIntyre's reaction later.

A summary of the previous inquiries is here.

Over at dotearth, Andy Revkin asks: "Was the East Anglia incident a crime?" He has asked six key scientists about Norfolk police's investigation into whether the emails were leaked or hacked from UEA. In short, the researchers have not been impressed by the police efforts. Stanford University's Stephen Schneider has been the victim of deaths threats – read our story here and some of expletive-laden emails here – and told Revkin "when I sent all my hate emails to Norfolk [police] some months back at their request, they bounced back with a spam filter saying 'too many expletives'! Pretty funny." Our take on the question of hack v leak is here.

Steve McIntyre is not getting his hopes up for the Muir Russell review but coins a juicy new phrase: "data petulance".

I don't expect the Muir Russell report to be as much of an insult to the public as the Penn State report [into the hockey stick scientist Michael Mann] or the Oxburgh report – both of which set the bar pretty low. Or at least, as an insult, it will not be so contemptuous of the public as to contain no documentation and negligible evidence that the authors had read even a few of the emails.

I'm 100% confident that they will make concessions on topics where the tide has already run against CRU – data archiving and availability, topics where the Commons science and technology committee has already expressed its extreme impatience with climate scientists. These are easy issues for Muir Russell to concede and you can pretty much book them already. I'd pay attention to the report on these issues only if Muir Russell unexpectedly supports some forms of data petulance.

11.00am: Now I hate to be a tease, but I have just got a copy of the Muir Russell review – under pain-of-death embargo until 1pm. So I can't say more but it has led me to my first reverse ferret of the day of the day: the report is 160 pages long, not 500.

11.15am: Thanks for the comments. Looks like we have a mixed crowd.

@gpwayne: sorry for any confusion. I agree with you, as per my 10.13am post:

This is not part of today's inquiry but even if it was the report couldn't do anything other than fully back the assertion that greenhouse gases emitted as a result of human activities are causing the world to warm.

@gubulgaria, @shhush: I am in no doubt that claims of whitewash will abound from those sceptical of man-made global warming. But wouldn't it be polite to wait until the report is actually out?

On Twitter, AJCorner – aka Cardiff University psychologist Adam Corner – objects to Fred Pearce calling scientists a "priesthood" on BBC Radio 4's Today programme. That topic loomed large at a debate I chaired at the Royal Institution last month.

11.43am: Just listened to Fred Pearce and Lord (Nick) Stern discussing the climate emails affair on the BBC's Today programme this morning.

Stern says there is 200 years of climate change science telling us that we are warming the planet – that's the "big picture" – and Fred agrees. But then Fred goes on to say that the emails reveal "an undercurrent of rather shabby behaviour" and a "siege mentality" among the scientists, and alludes to a "closed priesthood". The best thing that can come out of the whole affair, he says, is that scientists "come out to explain what they do better" and "be more open", working with "citizen scientists" on the blogs to make the research better.

Our story from Monday found some leading scientists seeing "climategate" as a turning point, when climate scientists, and perhaps science in general, really embraced the open, internet age.

Fred's book – based on his investigation for the Guardian, and including the annotations added by protagonists on our site – got a decent plug, and here's another: The Climate Files: The battle for the truth about global warming by Fred Pearce is available for £8.99 (RRP £11.99) from Guardian Books.

11.59am: A quick word on what impact "climategate" has – or hasn't – had. It began last November at a pretty sensitive time, a few weeks ahead of the UN's biggest ever climate change summit in Copenhagen. I wrote about the opinion polling back in March, and concluded that there had been a small rise in the number of people unconvinced about global warming, but that the effect of other factors – the failure of Copenhagen and a very cold northern hemisphere winter – were hard to discount.

More recent polling in June – reported by my colleague David Adam – shows little change too, with most people still believing global warming is happening, we are causing it, and that the impacts will be damaging.

12.16pm: Back to the comments:

@the snuffkin: good point, rejecting a paper because it fails to provide sufficient evidence for its conclusion, or is in some other way fatally flawed, is just good quality control. The allegation is that they crossed the line to blocking stuff they disagreed with.

@all whitewashers: can you just wait for the report?

@bluecloud: all opinions welcome, so thanks for pasting in the New Scientist review. I am sure they won't mind the copyright issue :-)

@CorneliusLysergic: sorry to disappoint, but this review will only cover access to computer codes.

12.42pm: Not long to go now. And to keep you going we have some powerful stuff from Dr Richard Horton, editor of the medical journal the Lancet, who Muir Russell called on to provide expert evidence on peer review:

On peer review, we sought independent input (from the editor of the Lancet) on how the system works, to provide a context for our judgment.

He pre-emptively rejects the pre-emptive charges of whitewash, saying the review is a "forensic and deeply critical analysis", adding that UEA "fell badly short of its scientific and public obligations. It needs radical reform."

Then he says:

What Russell has identified is the beginning of a revolution in the way science is being done.


The elements of the revolution are:

• Climategate reveals the urgent demand by a new breed of citizen-scientist for access to the raw data scientists use to do their work.

• Climategate shows that science must change its idea of accountability.

• Scientists need to get over their fear of uncertainty.

• Scientists need to take peer review off its pedestal.

• Scientists should be educated to embrace this new culture of science, not fear or resist it.

1pm: The report is now out: here's the top of my colleague David Adam's news story:

The climate scientists at the centre of a media storm were today cleared of accusations that they fudged their results and silenced critics to bolster the case for man-made global warming. Sir Muir Russell, said the "rigour and honesty" of the scientists at the Climatic Research Unit are not in doubt. They did not subvert the peer review process to censor criticism as alleged, the panel found, while key data needed to reproduce their findings was freely available to any "competent" researcher. The panel did criticise the scientists for not being open enough about their work, and said they were "unhelpful and defensive" when responding to legitimate requests made under Freedom of Information laws.

Read the full report here.

Here's some other first takes:

Press Association: "Climategate scientists' honesty not in doubt, says review":

The "rigour and honesty" of the scientists at the centre of a row over climate research, sparked when hundreds of emails were stolen from a world-renowned research centre, is not in doubt, an independent review said today. But the review into the "climategate" affair, led by Sir Muir Russell, found the scientists at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit had not been sufficiently open about their studies.

Associated Press: "'Climategate' inquiry mostly vindicates scientists":

An independent British report into the leak of hundreds of emails from one of the world's leading climate research centres has largely vindicated the scientists involved, something many in the field hope will help calm the global uproar dubbed "climategate". The inquiry by former UK civil servant Muir Russell into the scandal at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit found there was no evidence of dishonesty or corruption in the more than 1,000 emails that were posted to the Internet late last year. But he did chide the scientists involved for failing to share their data with critics.

And the Daily Mail headline? "'Climategate' scientists were 'unhelpful' and not open about their studies" ...

Fred Pearce's analysis is coming soon.

1.12pm: Professor Phil Jones is going back to work. He stepped down as head of the CRU while the investigation took place, and said he had received death threats and contemplated suicide.

Christine Ottery, who is on a work placement here at the Guardian, and was at the briefing, writes:

Phil Jones has accepted the new post of director of research at CRU. The vice-chancellor said this was not a demotion but would give Phil less administrative burden as the CRU would be more integrated into the School of Environmental Sciences – so the head of the school (and the vice-chancellor), not Jones, would be responsible for freedom of information requests. The report said the vice-chancellor was ultimately responsible for such requests.

1.16pm: Here comes the reaction – brace yourselves.

First up, the University of East Anglia. The full statement is here, but below are the highlights.

Vice-chancellor Professor Edward Acton:

Nine months ago there was an unjustified attack on the scientific integrity of researchers at the University of East Anglia and, as a result, on climate science as a whole. Emails stolen from this university were selectively misused to make serious allegations.

Today, for the third and hopefully for the final time, an exhaustive independent review has exposed as unfounded the overwhelming thrust of the allegations against our science.

In summary, the report dismisses allegations that our scientists destroyed or distorted data, tried to pervert peer review and attempted to misuse the IPCC process.

We accept the report's conclusion that we could and should have been more pro-actively open, not least because – as this exhaustive report makes abundantly clear – we have nothing to hide. We accept the need for our response to freedom of information requests to be positive and appropriate.

There are a number of conclusions, findings, and recommendations in this report not just for UEA but for the whole academic and research community.

Professor Phil Jones, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia:

I am, of course, extremely relieved that this review has now been completed. We have maintained all along that our science is honest and sound and this has been vindicated now by three different independent external bodies.

There are lessons to be learned from this affair and I need time to reflect on them before speaking in public, particularly given the scope of this report.

1.26pm: Back to the report for the key conclusions, from the horse's mouth. The emphasis in bold is the report's not mine.

1.3 Findings
13. Climate science is a matter of such global importance, that the highest standards of honesty, rigour and openness are needed in its conduct. On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.
14. In addition, we do not find that their behaviour has prejudiced the balance of advice given to policymakers. In particular, we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.
15. But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of the CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA, who failed to recognise not only the significance of statutory requirements but also the risk to the reputation of the university and, indeed, to the credibility of UK climate science.

Just a note – the conclusions of the IPCC assessments referred to above are that the world is warming far more rapidly than in pre-industrial times and that there is a 90% probability that humans are causing that warming.

1.34pm: Thanks for all the comments – keep them coming. You are either on one side or the other, it seems.

Over on David Adam's news story, SirChevalier is pleased:

Fabulous news! I've just danced a little jig around the office. Congratulations to Phil Jones and the CRU team. Now PLEASE can we get back to the science and to work out how to get out of the proverbial creek.

Slidewinder is more terse:

Looks like the Communists win again – what a whitewash!

Scram points out:

From [Richard Black's BBC] coverage: Benny Peiser from the GWPF legion of deniers has said: "We (the Global Warming Policy Foundation) have now commissioned our own inquiry into the way these three inquiries have been set up and run," he said. "I don't know anyone among the critics who has been swayed by the first two."

An inquiry into the inquiries. Epic.

1.51pm: And for variety, the world according to the first two commenters on the Daily Mail story (thanks to Leo Hickman):

another cover up to prolong the climate change scam which is kept going to justify the funding of the third world, but the UK could benefit here in a couple of years as it is very fast becoming a third would country - graham, carlisle, 07/7/2010 13:16

Reminiscent of the MMR vaccine scare, bird flu epidemic, et al! Just because we, the taxpayer, pay these people vast amounts of money to advise us dont think they have our interests at heart, far from it , self interest always comes first, it's the modern way! - Barry, Cumbria, 07/7/2010 13:11

1.55pm: Now some reaction just sent to the Guardian from two top-notch scientists, Mike Mann of "hockey stick" fame and who made frequent appearances in the leaked emails, and Raymond Bradley, who says "this was a shameful chapter in the history of news reporting" – ouch.

Michael E Mann, director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC):

I was pleased to see the committee confirm that there is nothing in the stolen emails that in any way calls into question the validity of their science. It is my hope that we can now put this bogus, manufactured scandal behind us, and move on to a more constructive conversation about climate change. It seems particularly ironic that climate change deniers continue to harp over their now discredited claims regarding decade-old emails while we're experiencing almost daily reminders of the reality of global warming and climate change. We're currently witnessing the warmest temperatures ever globally, and are in the midst of a record-setting heat wave in the US associated with the warmest early summer temperatures ever.

Raymond Bradley, director of the Climate System Research Center at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst:

The report by Sir Muir Russell et al confirms what everybody who has worked with Phil Jones and Keith Briffa knew all along – they are honest, hard-working scientists whose reputations have been unjustifiably smeared by allegations of unscrupulous behaviour. These allegations are soundly rejected by the report. If there is a scandal to be reported at all, it is this: the media stoked a controversy without properly investigating the issues, choosing to inflate trivialities to the level of an international scandal, without regard for the facts or individuals affected. This was a shameful chapter in the history of news reporting, and a lesson for those who are concerned about fair and honest communication with the public.

2.09pm: Plenty more reaction to come, plus a summary, but next up it's Martin Rosenbaum, who blogs for the BBC on freedom of information, and makes what I think will probably be the key point of the whole affair:

[The review] found that "UEA's information policy and compliance manager may have lacked such standing within the university structure and the authority to challenge the assertions of senior professors".

This point has wider ramifications of significance to all public authorities. A phenomenon familiar to anyone with much experience of FOI is that of a comparatively junior FOI officer struggling to persuade more senior colleagues elsewhere in the organisation that the information they hold really should be released, no matter how annoying the requester is and how uncomfortable the disclosure would be.

In another finding of wider importance, the review stresses that "earlier action to release information" might have minimised later problems. Although the CRU did eventually face a barrage of very similar applications, coordinated via a climate sceptic's website, this happened after it had already established a pattern of unhelpfulness in dealing with the earlier, far more limited number of requests.

[The review] constitutes a powerful warning to other academic institutions that openness has to become a deeper part of how they operate.

2.25pm: A summary of the main events so far:

• The Muir Russell review into allegations arising from the leaking of over 1,000 emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit found:

– The rigour and honesty of the scientists is not in doubt.

– No evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments that human activities are causing global warming.

– That there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness.

David Adam's news story is here.

Professor Phil Jones is to go back to work at CRU, but not as its head as before. That post has been abolished as CRU is integrated into UEA's School of Envioronmental Sciences.

• UEA's vice chancellor, Professor Edward Acton, has made a statement. He said: "The report dismisses allegations that our scientists destroyed or distorted data, tried to pervert peer review and attempted to misuse the IPCC process" but accepts the "conclusion that we could and should have been more pro-actively open".

Lancet editor Richard Horton, who advised Russell, says the review is a "forensic and deeply critical analysis", adding that UEA "fell badly short of its scientific and public obligations. It needs radical reform." Then he says: "What Russell has identified is the beginning of a revolution in the way science is being done."

2.39pm: I have lots of interesting reaction coming in by email, but nothing yet from any recognised sceptics. Have they given up? Is it too early in the US?

Here's Gavin Schmidt's take. He is a climate scientist at the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and runs RealClimate, the site on which hackers first tried to place the climate emails:

The Muir Russell report is a surprisingly thorough investigation into the practices and methodologies of the CRU team. The report demonstrates again and again that the recent barrage of accusations and insinuations against the scientists and the science had no basis in fact. The authors even created (with only two days' work!) an analysis of weather station data from public sources that demonstrated the same patterns and trends that CRU has published (something the critics have never done) ... However, the spinning of the stolen emails will likely continue apace.

The creation of a weather station analysis is a sharp point. Critics say they can't get their hands on the data; the scientists respond they could if they put the effort in.

And this from the lengthily titled policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at London School of Economics and Political Science, Bob Ward:

The reputation of the whole of climate research has been tarnished by speculation over the emails, but the inquiry's findings demonstrate that the integrity of climate science is intact. It is clear that greater transparency is required in climate research because of the intense public interest in it, and its profound implications for society. However, it is also now very apparent that many so-called "sceptics" owe a huge apology to the public for having wrongly presented the email messages as evidence that climate change is a hoax carried out by a conspiracy of dishonest scientists.

2.59pm: Next up, Andy Revkin on Dot Earth, continuing the theme that climate change science needs to embrace the openness of the web (thanks Leo Hickman, for the extract):

As I've written, changes are clearly needed in how climate science proceeds and how it is assessed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I agree with Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on the fact that climatology is a young field that developed for decades out of the limelight, and that has suddenly been thrust into the heart of a multi-trillion-dollar fight over national and global energy policy. It's no surprise that that transition has come with growing pains.

Another change, of course, is the rise of the blogosphere as an independent, and speed-of-light, distributor and dissector of information. Point number 36 [in the Muir Russell report] below is particularly germane and reflects what I've said here about transparency being unavoidable now:

"An important feature of the blogosphere is the extent to which it demands openness and access to data. A failure to recognise this and to act appropriately, can lead to immense reputational damage by feeding allegations of cover up. Being part of a like minded group may provide no defence. Like it or not, this indicates a transformation in the way science has to be conducted in this century."

There are signs such changes are starting to occur, both in formal inquiries like the Muir Russell report and United Nations review of the climate panel's procedures, but also even on the blogosphere, where informed individuals with varied views on climate and energy policy are no longer simply throwing verbal bombs at each other in endless rounds of contradiction and instead shifting to constructive argument.

3.46pm: More reaction from scientists now, sent to us at the Guardian, but I have also spotted some sceptical responses, so I'll be getting to those soon.

Myles Allen, head of the Climate Dynamics group at University of Oxford's Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics department, and at times not a fan of the Guardian, writes:

What everyone has lost sight of is the spectacular failure of mainstream journalism to keep the whole affair in perspective. Again and again, stories are sexed up with arch hints that these "revelations" might somehow impact on the evidence for human impact on climate. Yet the only error in the actual data used for climate change detection to have emerged from this whole affair amounted to a few hundredths of a degree in the estimated global temperature of a couple of years in the late 1870s.

Allen also says:

Possibly the most important criticism in the Muir-Russell review is their finding (26) that "given its subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the TAR), the [hockey-stick] figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading" for not making clear that the tree-ring series had been truncated and instrumental data spliced on. They correctly point out that the WMO report "does not have the status or significance of IPCC reports". What they fail to mention is that the "iconic" version of the figure subsequently produced for the IPCC third assessment made it perfectly clear that the tree-ring series was truncated and the instrumental data was spliced on – the two data-types were shown in different colours!


Mike Hulme, who is professor of climate change at UEA's School of Environmental Sciences, reprises his comments from our story on Monday:

What is the future of climate science and climate policy after the final inquiry into the released emails from CRU? I believe the CRU emails have been a game-changer for science – but has done little to alter the policy conundrums raised by climate change.

4.10pm: We now have Fred Pearce's commentary. Here's the start:

Generally honest but frequently secretive; rigorous in their dealings with fellow scientists but often "unhelpful and defensive", and sometimes downright "misleading", when explaining themselves to the wider world. That was the verdict of Sir Muir Russell and his fellow committee members.

Many will find the report indulgent of reprehensible behaviour, particularly in peer review, where CRU researchers have been accused of misusing their seniority in climate science to block criticism. Brutal exchanges in which researchers boasted of "going to town" to prevent publication of papers critical of their own work, and in which they conspired to blacklist journals that published hostile papers, are dismissed by Sir Muir as "robust" and "typical of the debate that can go on in peer review".

4.20pm: Time to round up what little reaction there is from the sceptics. They are not happy.

Dr Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation:

There is clearly strong evidence of mishandling of the [FOI] requests and strong criticism of the university's failure to provide data and information. I don't think the university can just claim that this is a vindication.

Janet Daley, Daily Telegraph:

It will come as a surprise to no one that yet another inquiry into climate science has ended up exonerating everybody involved. Professor Phil Jones is back in his academic berth at the University of East Anglia having been cleared of the charge of dishonestly manipulating evidence. But the damage done to the credibility of the anthropogenic climate change argument will remain, as much for the tone of those notorious emails as for their precise details.

Andrew Orlowski, The Register:

The University of East Anglia's enquiry into the conduct of its own staff at its Climatic Research Unit has highlighted criticisms of the department and staff conduct – but clears the path for the individuals concerned to carry on. The panel avoided examining the scientific work of the CRU team – as have the two other reviews of the leaked archive by Lord Oxburgh, and the Commons select committee on science. If the academics had used bats' wings or tea leaves to create temperature reconstructions, that wasn't a matter for any of the panels to judge. And this is undoubtedly a shortcoming.

4.30pm: A headline survey:

'Climategate' professor gets his job back – Daily Telegraph

• CRU climate scientists 'did not withold [sic] data' – BBC

Climategate scientists "damaged trust" – the Times

UK inquiry exonerates 'climategate' scientists – Financial Times

• Climategate scientists were 'unhelpful' and not open about their studies, finds review – Daily Mail

• British Panel Clears Climate Scientists – New York Times

Excessive secrecy, but integrity not in question – Sydney Morning Herald

The Independent and Express have no stories online on the Russell report. Nor has the Sun – but it does have this:

• Gay illegals can stay, court rules.

4.48pm: The argument is hotting up. The LSE's Bob Ward is taking Benny Peiser to task over comments reportedly made by Lord (Nigel) Lawson on BBC Radio 4. Peiser is director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a sceptical thinktank, while Lawson is the chairman of its board of trustees.

Dear Dr Peiser,

I am writing with regard to comments made by Lord Lawson of Blaby, the chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, during an interview on the 'World At One' programme on BBC Radio 4 earlier today.

Lord Lawson accused Dr Phil Jones of the Climatic Research Unit of being "disreputable" and of "misleading" the public and policy-makers in relation to the representation of global average temperature in a graph that was supplied to the World Meteorological Organisation in 1999.

In view of this criticism, I was wondering whether Lord Lawson will be making an immediate statement about the misleading and inaccurate representation that is prominently displayed on the Foundation's website of global average temperature records compiled by the Climatic Research Unit and the Hadley Centre.

As I pointed out to you earlier this year, your graph of global temperature since 2001 misleads the public by hiding the significant warming that occurred during the 20th century and inaccurately portrays 2009 as a cooler year than 2006 or 2007.

Will you be correcting this graph or does the Foundation operate a double standard when judging the integrity of the information that it promotes to the public and policy-makers?

Yours sincerely,

Bob Ward

5.41pm:

OK, a bit more reaction before I do a summing up, in this case from the Gaia scientist James Lovelock, who picks up on the difficulties faced by traditional peer review in a world with blogs. My colleague Leo Hickman, who spoke to Lovelock, says Lovelock has been following this Guardian live blog with great interest all afternoon. He had this to say in response to the Russell review:

It's a pretty devastating report, isn't it? It's one of the most professional of the reports of this kind that I've ever come across. I thought it could have been a "let's sweep it all decently under the carpet"-type report, but I have been pleasantly surprised by what I've read so far. It strikes me as a very honest report.

I'm glad to say that they say there's been no cheating, no fudging of data, but they've made the comment that [the UEA scientists] could have been more open. What I would say is that the UEA are very unlucky to have been singled out in this way. Almost all science suffers from this kind of thing, and it's an inevitable consequence of science being fragmented into specialisms which tend to be filled up with little tribal groups and friends who all share the same hypothesis that's running around at that moment. So they see the world, not as an enemy, but as something a bit alien and outside, and this is the way that science is going on nowadays.

UEA should not take this too much to heart. It's bad luck that they were singled out, but they are among the best in the world at climate science. But they've got to put it behind them. Science itself has got to start examining the way it works. I'm unhappy with the development of the peer-review process. This report compares peer review, which is "pure", with the blogosphere, which is "impure" – and there's some truth in that, to be sure – but the peer-review process can be exceedingly prejudiced and exert censorship even.

I know that it has had a devastating impact on the morale within the group of UEA scientists, but they are a really good group and I personally would completely trust their results. But I do agree with this report that we've all drifted into a bad way of presenting our science.

I'll just add a reminder that today's piece for us by the Lancet editor, Richard Horton, is well worth reading on this.

6.08pm:
An interesting development regarding the FOI request made to UEA, whose handling of such requests is criticised by Muir Russell. David Holland, a climate sceptic who had requested emails and other information via an FOI request, made a complaint to the Information Commissioner's Office, who released their judgment today. You can see the whole judgment here.

In summary, it finds UEA regulations under FOI law "by failing to provide a response to a request within 20 working days" and "by failing to provide a response to other requests". The finding supports Muir Russell's conclusion that CRI and UEA "failed to recognise not only the significance of statutory requirements but also the risk to the reputation of the university and, indeed, to the credibility of UK climate science."

Holland has said he is content not to proceed with his complaint, so no further action will taken with regard to his FOI requests.

6.20pm:
The sceptic big guns have weighed in. Steve McIntyre says:

I guess the main question coming out of the Muir Russell report is: when is he going to be appointed to the House of Lords and his choice of appellation? Lord Muir of Holyrood? They adopted a unique inquiry process in which they interviewed only one side – CRU. As a result, the report is heavily weighted towards CRU apologia.

He then addresses the question of how the CRU scientist dealt with the IPCC review process, well worth a read. He adds that the Muir Russell review in his view absolves the scientists for name-calling their sceptical adversaries and instead blames the medium of email itself.

Over on Watts up with that?, Anthony Watts writes:

Unfortunately Russell is another apologist who doesn't ask relevant questions of both sides, only one side.

6.43pm:
A final summary of an illuminating day:

The Muir Russell review into allegations arising from the leaking of over 1,000 emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit found:

– The rigour and honesty of the scientists is not in doubt.

– No evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments that human activities are causing global warming.

– That there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness.

More in David Adam's news story.

Professor Phil Jones is to go back to work at CRU, but not as its head as before. That post has been abolished as CRU is integrated into UEA's School of Environmental Sciences.

More in Leo Hickman's news story

UEA's vice chancellor, Professor Edward Acton, has robustly defended UEA. He said: "The report dismisses allegations that our scientists destroyed or distorted data, tried to pervert peer review and attempted to misuse the IPCC process" but accepts the "conclusion that we could and should have been more pro-actively open".

But this comment from Fred Pearce argues there's plenty of sharp criticism in the Muir Russell review.

• The UK's Information Commissioner's Office has found UEA breached some Freedom of Information regulations over requests made by David Holland.

See the decision notice here.

• Numerous commentators say the Muir Russell review should mark a turning point at which climate science finds a new, more open way to work, that takes account of the open communication made possible by the internet, including Lancet editor Richard Horton, who advised Russell, James Lovelock in this blog and Andy Revkin at dotEarth.

There's plenty more to come here on guardian.co.uk, including George Monbiot's comment and David Adam's full write-up of the report, but that's it from me. Thanks for all the comments.

Lastly, you can join a live Guardian debate on 'Climategate' with a stellar panel in London, on 14 July. It's being chaired by George Monbiot and will have Prof Bob Watson, Fred Pearce, Steve McIntyre and other special guests. More details here.

 

Leave a Comment

Required fields are marked *

*

*