Der Zwischenbericht des englischen “Science and Technology Committee zur Climategate Affäre” ist heute herausgekommen. Es hat Phil Jones weitestgehend entlastet und insbesondere seine wissenschaftlichen Resultate nicht in Frage gestellt. Die Vorwürfe, Daten-Anfragen nicht korrekt gehandhabt zu haben, bleiben aber bestehen und wurden aus eher formalen Gründen nicht weiter verfolgt.
Hier findet man den Report und hier das Protokoll der Komission.
Die University of East Anglia begrüszte den entsprechenden Abschlussbericht. Hier die Zusammenfassung des Berichts:
The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of
East Anglia (UEA) in November 2009 had the potential to damage the reputation of the
climate science and the scientists involved.
We believe that the focus on CRU and Professor Phil Jones, Director of CRU, in particular,
has largely been misplaced. Whilst we are concerned that the disclosed e-mails suggest a
blunt refusal to share scientific data and methodologies with others, we can sympathise
with Professor Jones, who must have found it frustrating to handle requests for data that he
knew–or perceived–were motivated by a desire simply to undermine his work.
In the context of the sharing of data and methodologies, we consider that Professor Jones’s
actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. It is not
standard practice in climate science to publish the raw data and the computer code in
academic papers. However, climate science is a matter of great importance and the quality
of the science should be irreproachable. We therefore consider that climate scientists
should take steps to make available all the data that support their work (including raw data)
and full methodological workings (including the computer codes). Had both been
available, many of the problems at UEA could have been avoided.
We are content that the phrases such as “trick” or “hiding the decline” were colloquial
terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a
systematic attempt to mislead. Likewise the evidence that we have seen does not suggest
that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not
be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers.
In the context of Freedom of Information (FOIA), much of the responsibility should lie
with UEA. The disclosed e-mails appear to show a culture of non-disclosure at CRU and
instances where information may have been deleted, to avoid disclosure. We found prima
facie evidence to suggest that the UEA found ways to support the culture at CRU of
resisting disclosure of information to climate change sceptics. The failure of UEA to grasp
fully the potential damage to CRU and UEA by the non-disclosure of FOIA requests was
regrettable. UEA needs to review its policy towards FOIA and re-assess how it can support
academics whose expertise in this area is limited.
The Deputy Information Commissioner has given a clear indication that a breach of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 may have occurred but that a prosecution was timebarred;
however no investigation has been carried out. In our view it is unsatisfactory to
leave the matter unresolved. We conclude that the matter needs to be resolved
conclusively–either by the Independent Climate Change Email Review or by the
We accept the independence of the Climate Change E-mail Review and recommend that
the Review be open and transparent, taking oral evidence and conducting interviews in
public wherever possible.
On 22 March UEA announced the Scientific Appraisal Panel to be chaired by Lord
4 Optional header
Oxburgh. This Panel should determine whether the work of CRU has been soundly built
and it would be premature for us to pre-judge its work.