Scientists at Britain’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) did not tamper with scientific data, but could have avoided some of the controversy surrounding leaked documents last year by making their data and methodology more readily available, according to a report issued by a committee of England’s House of Commons Wednesday.

Charges and countercharges flew last year after the release by hackers of hundreds of documents and e-mails that were exchanged between leading climate scientists from the CRU (see Daily GPI, Nov. 30, 2009). Opponents of the theory that human activities are to blame for climate change claimed that the purloined documents revealed efforts by some research scientists to manipulate data to support a massive worldwide campaign to retard climate change.

In December CRU director Phil Jones announced that he would “step aside” until the completion of an independent review of the incident (see Daily GPI, Dec. 4, 2009).

The focus on CRU, and on Jones in particular, in the aftermath of the release of the documents and e-mails “has largely been misplaced,” according to the committee. “Whilst we are concerned that the disclosed e-mails suggest a blunt refusal to share scientific data and methodologies with others, we can sympathize 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.”

While it is not standard practice in climate science to publish the raw data and computer code in academic papers, “climate science is a matter of great importance and the quality of the science should be irreproachable,” the committee said in its report. “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.”

The committee said it found evidence of “a culture of nondisclosure” at CRU, including instances where information may have been deleted to avoid disclosure. The committee recommended that the matter be further investigated and that UEA review its policy toward Freedom of Information Act requests. A scientific appraisal panel recently formed by UEA “should determine whether the work of CRU has been soundly built,” the committee concluded.

According to London’s Daily Telegraph, approximately 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 other documents were stolen from CRU computers by hackers and circulated on websites run by climate change skeptics. The skeptics said the e-mails showed scientists discussing how to manipulate data to show a temperature increase in recent years when there has actually been a decrease, and discussing ways to remove dissenting scientists from the peer review process. At the time, CRU officials said the hacked documents had “been taken out of context and misinterpreted” and revealed only an “open debate” among climate change researchers.

“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,” according to the committee report. “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.”

©Copyright 2010Intelligence Press Inc. All rights reserved. The preceding news reportmay not be republished or redistributed, in whole or in part, in anyform, without prior written consent of Intelligence Press, Inc.