The UK’s Independent Climate Change E-mails Review (ICCER), chaired by Sir Muir Russell, released the final report on July 7, into the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia - the so-called ‘climategate’ scandal. The report found that, on the specific allegations made against the behaviour of Climatic Research Unit (CRU) scientists, the rigour and honesty of the scientists are not in doubt. The report did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments. But they did find 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 University of East Anglia.
A full copy of the report is online here.
Feel free to use these quotes in your stories. Any further comments will be posted here. If you would like to speak to an expert, please don’t hesitate to contact us on (08) 7120 8666 or by email.
Will Steffen is executive director of the ANU Climate Change Institute
“The review was unequivocal in exonerating the scientists at the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, UK, of any serious wrongdoing with regard to their handling of land temperature data, temperature reconstructions from tree rings, and their relationship to the IPCC or the peer review system. In essence, the review found no evidence to support any of the vociferous claims by climate change deniers that challenge the honesty, rigour and professionalism of the CRU scientists.
Just as important, however, is another point made in the review. It noted that ‘…much of the challenge to CRU’s work has not always followed the conventional scientific method of checking and seeking to falsify conclusions or offering alternative hypotheses for peer review and publication. We believe this is necessary if science is to move on….’
This is a very clear message. Legitimate scientific discussion and debate is not carried out in the popular media or in the blogosphere. It is carried out via peer-reviewed scientific publication. And there is no evidence that the peer-review process in climate change science is broken.”
Professor Dave Griggs is chief executive officer of ClimateWorks Australia and director of the Monash Sustainability Institute
“Consistent with previous enquiries this report found that the rigour and honesty of the University of East Anglia scientists is not in doubt and did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the I.P.C.C. assessments. This should leave people in no doubt as to the integrity of the fundamental science of climate change.
However, the media furore which accompanied the accusations and the timing of those accusations just prior to the Copenhagen conference did untold damage to efforts to take action on climate change both nationally and internationally. It now falls to the media to display the same rigour and honesty displayed by the scientists by giving the same prominence to this report that they gave to the accusations.”
Professor Neville Nicholls is Professorial Fellow in the School of Geography and Environmental Science at Monash University, Victoria, and president of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
“The last 12 months have seen the hottest global average temperatures yet recorded, in both the surface thermometer record (which is available back to about 1880) and the completely independent satellite data (which starts in 1979). Given this continued, and strong, global warming, it is not surprising that vested interests committed to avoiding any action on climate change have decided to ‘play the man’ by trying to distract climate scientists from doing science. The Muir Russell report is the sixth independent review to examine the work of a handful of distinguished climate scientists in the US and UK, in response to sustained attacks on them and their work. It is the sixth independent review to vindicate the scientists and to clear them of any suggestion of impropriety or inappropriate science. Despite this, I am sure that attempts to distract the scientists, the media, the public and politicians from the reality of global warming will continue unabated and unashamed.”
Professor Steven Sherwood is in Physical Meteorology and Atmospheric Climate Dynamics at the Climate Change Research Centre, University of New South Wales
“The fraud accusations that followed this email affair never had any basis and came from people who had either a political agenda or an inadequate understanding of what the emails were discussing. It is gratifying to see a third investigation confirming that, apart from being too defensive, the scientists were just doing their jobs. I hope sanity can now return to our discussions of climate change.”
Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg is the Director of the University of Queensland’s Global Change Institute
“The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review has clearly vindicated the CRU scientists, finding that ‘their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt’. This is a far cry from the accusations of criminality, threats and personal assassinations perpetrated by special interest and sections of the media. Naturally, the report does have some useful recommendations for avoiding some of the problems associated with how CRU and UEA responded to the criminal act of stealing and publicising an organisation’s emails. Training scientists in communicating the results of their work to the general public, ensuring that data are available to all, typing up how we use the peer review process, and reviewing the IPCC process are also useful recommendations.
After all the hot air, it appears that the CRU scientists are honest and rigorous, and that there is ‘no evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments’. Seems pretty clear conclusion to me. Perhaps it’s time for a few public apologies from those who told a wildly different story!
What will be interesting to see is if the people and organisations that propagated the mythologies about the CRU and its scientists will now apologise and correct the record. Unfortunately, this is unlikely to happen. Also, shouldn’t we now demand to see their e-mail inboxes and conduct a review on why they got the story so wrong? Could be a very interesting exercise!”
Dr Helen McGregor is a Research Fellow with the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Wollongong
“This report dismisses sceptics attempts to undermine the legitimacy of climate science. The reality of human-induced climate change remains and there are no excuses for inaction.
I wholeheartedly agree with the reports’ call for more open and transparent reporting of climate data. The report encourages scientists to better communicate their science to the public - a more informed community will be in a better position to deal with the climate issues ahead.”
Helen has also written an opinion piece on issues of belief, misrepresentation and communication of climate science, which is available here.
UK Science Media Centre Round-up:
Our colleagues at the the UK Science Media Centre have compiled the following quotes for media use:
Prof Sir John Beddington, Government Chief Scientific Advisor, said:
“I welcome that Muir Russell’s review finds the rigour and honesty of UEA scientists to be in no doubt. This is the third review to find no evidence of scientific malpractice at the University. The scientific case that climate change represents a major threat to our world and our societies is clear and compelling.
“The report makes some important points about the need for openness and transparency both for the scientific method and the public perception of science. Science depends on openness and challenge.”
Dr Myles Allen, Head of the Climate Dynamics Group, University of Oxford, said:
“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. Having worked in this area for over a decade, I have never used data prior to the 1890s, not because I don’t like what it tells me, but because the data is so sparse it really doesn’t tell us anything at all. Contrary to popular myth, the original “hockey stick” reconstructions of temperatures over the past millennium played no role in the IPCC’s 2001 assessment that most of the warming over the past 50 years was likely to have been caused by rising greenhouse gas levels.
“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!”
Dr Chris Huntingford, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, said:
“Climate change has the potential to impact on the lives of millions of people. These may include major changes to our energy usage and sources, or the need in some regions to adapt to unwelcome alterations of the weather systems. Although the basic science of climate change can be trusted, it must be totally transparent, stating what we know for certain, and be very clear indeed where uncertainties remain. The methods used to make predictions of future change will have to withstand extreme levels of scrutiny, whether that is from colleagues, policymakers or the general public. So whilst the process following on from the CRU email leak has been painful, there is absolutely clear that this new level of accountability should be very much welcomed.
“Most of the research to date has been performed with integrity. For example, every line of computer code in the numerical models of climate built by the Met Office is checked and double-checked by an independent countersigning scientist. The UK research centres and universities work with these simulations, and through our feedback aid in their development. The names of those accountable are clearly visible at each point in the computer models. This mindset and associated protocols now need to permeate across all aspects of climate change research. Some will no doubt complain that it takes up too much time. But my betting is that once it becomes a habit, the time overhead will be less than expected. When under pressure to reply to Freedom-of-Information requests, that additional built-in transparency means we can forward all such documentation. So ultimately enhanced openness could actually save time and comes with the added benefit of retaining trust in the science of climate change.
“The last twenty years has seen a shift, from research in to the global environment being an intellectual curiosity to one of utmost importance. For those working in the field, this is both rewarding but it also brings new responsibilities. I’m quietly confident the research community will rise to this challenge, being kept “on our toes” by the ever increasing levels of examination.”
Bob Ward, Policy and Communications Director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science, said:
“The inquiry has cleared the climate scientists of any allegations of dishonesty or corruption, and has lifted the cloud of suspicion that has hung over the research community for the past seven months. The reputation of the whole of climate research has been tarnished by speculation over the e-mails, 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 e-mail messages as evidence that climate change is a hoax carried out by a conspiracy of dishonest scientists.”
Dr Julia Slingo, Chief Scientist at the Met Office, said:
“What is quite clear from this, and earlier inquiries, is that the integrity of the fundamental science of climate change is unquestioned - our climate is changing and we have shown beyond reasonable doubt that humans are in part responsible.
“Climate change has huge implications societal and economically, so it is right that the science is subject to the closest scrutiny and we fully support the need for greater openness and clarity. We are already taking action by making data and codes available, and we have led an international proposal for a new global daily land surface temperature dataset, which has the backing of the World Meteorological Organization and has open access as its key element.”
Prof Sir Brian Hoskins, Director, Grantham Institute for Climate Change, Imperial College London, said:
“Climate science has remained robust in the face of this and all the other reviews. The evidence that we are performing a dangerous experiment with planet Earth is still strong. However it is clear that the increasing importance of the implications of the science mean that high standards of openness have to be kept to.
We now have to move on. As a climate scientist I believe it is imperative to renew our focus on determining with more confidence the implications of continuing greenhouse gas emissions. As a member of the UK Climate Change Committee I urge a focus on the step change we need in moving towards a low carbon society.”<–>