University defends integrity of its climate change research 

Thousands of files and emails received and sent by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) between 1996 and 2009 were illegally obtained from a research server at the university and posted on various websites.

The scientist at the eye of the storm, Professor Phil Jones, head of the CRU, in a statement issued on Tuesday that the publication of the emails at this time looks like a deliberate attempt to undermine the global climate talks taking place in Copenhagen next month.   

“One has to wonder if it is a coincidence that this email correspondence has been stolen and published at this time,” he said. 

“This may be a concerted attempt to put a question mark over the science of climate change in the run-up to the Copenhagen talks.”

He admitted that some of the emails do not read well: “Some were clearly written in the heat of the moment, others use colloquialisms frequently used between close colleagues.”

 But he maintained: “We are, and have always been, scrupulous in ensuring that our science publications are robust and honest.”

One email that has attracted particular attention from climate change sceptics refers to the ‘trick’ of adding recent instrumental data to the end of temperature reconstructions that were based on proxy data.  

A statement from the CRU today claimed that the use of the word ‘trick’ was not intended to imply any deception.

It explained it was simply the case that to produce temperature series that were completely up-to-date, showing how temperatures may have changed over the last 1,000 years, it was necessary to combine the temperature reconstructions with the instrumental record. 

This was because the temperature reconstructions from proxy data ended many years earlier whereas the instrumental record is updated every month.

Professor Jones added: “One of the three temperature reconstructions was based entirely on a particular set of tree-ring data that shows a strong correlation with temperature from the 19th century through to the mid-20th century, but does not show a realistic trend of temperature after 1960. This is well known and is called the ‘decline’ or ‘divergence’. 

“The use of the term ‘hiding the decline’ was in an email written in haste. CRU has not sought to hide the decline. Indeed, CRU has published a number of articles that both illustrate, and discuss the implications of, this recent tree-ring decline [...]

Indeed the UAE today strongly refuted any suggestions that it was less than open with its data or reluctant to respond to Freedom of Information requests – pointing out that many of the data series it holds come from research organisations around the world and cannot be released without their permission.

Professor Trevor Davies, pro-vice-chancellor, research insisted: “No record has been deleted, altered, or otherwise dealt with in any fashion with the intent of preventing the disclosure of all, or any part, of the requested information. 

“Where information has not been disclosed, we have done so in accordance with the provisions of the relevant legislation and have so informed the requester.”

In another part of the same statement he said: “The UEA and CRU are committed to scientific integrity, open debate and enhancing understanding. This includes a commitment to the international peer-review system upon which progress in science relies."

“It is through that process that we can engage in respectful and informed debate with scientists whose analyses appear not to be consistent with the current overwhelming consensus on climate change.”

He added: “The publication of a selection of stolen data is the latest example of a sustained and, in some instances, a vexatious campaign which may have been designed to distract from reasoned debate about the nature of the urgent action which world governments must consider to mitigate, and adapt to, climate change.”

In a similar vein, Professor Jones said: “In the frenzy of the past few days, the most vital issue is being overshadowed: we face enormous challenges ahead if we are to continue to live on this planet.”

He maintains that, despite the events of the last few days, the evidence for this is unequivocal: “Our global temperature series tallies with those of other, completely independent, groups of scientists working for NASA and the National Climate Data Center in the United States, among others."