Work
02.March 2010 - 00:00
Sound climate science
The leaked electronic files of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia have greatly disturbed the scientific world.
Prominent scientists conspired against critical researchers by apparently trying to withhold data and other information of relevance to published research, thwart the peer review process, and keep papers out of the IPCC reports.
The examples include incidents such as the centre’s director, the leading author of the IPCC 4AR, Phil Jones, writing to Pennsylvania State University’s Michael E. Mann questioning whether the work of sceptic academics deserves to make it into the prestigious IPCC report. In another e-mail there is discussion on how an academic journal can be pressured not to accept the work of scientists with whom they disagree.
The ethics of climate science are questioned and some perceive some of the world’s leading climate scientists to be more dedicated to promoting the alarmist political agenda than scientific research. Two broad issues are clearly impeding the public credibility of climate research: lack of transparency and a so-called ‘tribalism’ amongst the climate research community, impeding peer review and the assessment process.
This information and the growing evidence of lack of transparency, as in the case of the HADCRU surface climate data set and the paleoclimate data set that has gone into the various ‘hockeystick’ analyses, have led to confusion. Data sets that are now regarded as essential elements of the climate data record have often been proved to contain elements whose raw data or metadata were not preserved or handled according to basic scientific requirements or in some cases were even purposely deleted. This, together with the fact that the temperature rise during the past 10 years has not followed growth in emissions, raises many questions.
Given the growing policy relevance of climate data and the lack of a sound scientific basis for many of the foundations of climate science, is the Commission worried that the EU’s decisions that affect millions and cost millions are based on unreliable information sources?
How will the Commission ensure that the climate data that the EU uses as the scientific basis for its climate policies is free of any political agenda and fully complies with the profound principles of scientific evaluation? Increasingly higher standards must be applied to the transparency and availability of such data, therefore will the Commission ensure that all such fundamental science will in future be publicly available and well documented, including metadata that explain how the data were treated and manipulated, what assumptions were made in assembling the data sets, and what data were omitted and why?
Does the Commission share the opinion — and is it willing to assess it in relation to all the science used by the EU — that the need to increase the public credibility of climate science requires publicly available data and metadata, a rigorous peer review process, and a response to arguments raised even by the sceptics?
2 March 2010
Answer given by Mrs Geoghegan-Quinn on behalf of the Commission
The recent illegal release of e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) captured much attention of the international press during the Copenhagen COP 15 Conference.
The Commission is not in a position to comment on specific claims and content of particular e-mails as such investigation is not within the Commission's mandate. The Commission takes note of UEA's decision to launch an independent enquiry on this matter.
Regarding climate data, the Commission notes that CRU/Met Office analyses are confirmed by two independent analyses by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the United States of America (USA), as well as by other indicators of climate change, not only temperature changes but also changes of Arctic sea ice coverage, continental glacier retreat and rising sea levels.
The primacy of the Assessment Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for climate change policy-making is internationally recognised and their robust findings represent an essential element of EU climate policy. The IPCC process has been designed to have the highest possible level of international transparency. IPCC summary reports have been agreed by every government of countries that are members of IPCC and have been formally accepted as guiding documents for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
The IPCC is one of the most rigorous scientific assessment bodies in existence. Thousands of scientists have dedicated their time to forming the most comprehensive and authoritative assessments of climate science available. Therefore the Commission has full confidence in the IPCC process.
The Commission, in line with the views of the Honourable Members, is of the opinion that high quality standards and open access to data and any additional information such as analytical methods applied, are vital for climate research and should be traceable.
The INSPIRE Directive(1), whose implementation is advancing rapidly, aims to create a common European infrastructure for spatial data, and is at the heart of the Commission's efforts to make publicly held data in Europe more accessible.
A full and open data policy is also being developed for the Global Monitoring for Environment and Security initiative (GMES(2)), which will make a significant contribution to climate change research, by delivering inter alia relevant information on the Essential Climate Variables based on reanalysing observational data from satellites and non-space sensors.
Both GMES and INSPIRE are contributing to the global initiative of the Group on Earth Observations (GEO). The members of GEO agreed to develop a Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS). The data sharing principles of GEOSS entail open and free access for all climate change related research activities.
Within the Environment Theme of the 7th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP7, 2007 13), the Commission has established a special clause which ensures that EU institutions and Bodies shall enjoy access rights to foreground knowledge (i.e. data and information generated within a research project), for the purpose of developing, implementing and monitoring environmental policies. Such access rights shall be granted by the FP7 Grant Agreement beneficiaries concerned on a royalty-free basis.
(1) http://inspire.jrc.ec.europa.eu
(2) http://www.gmes.info
The leaked electronic files of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia have greatly disturbed the scientific world.
Prominent scientists conspired against critical researchers by apparently trying to withhold data and other information of relevance to published research, thwart the peer review process, and keep papers out of the IPCC reports.
The examples include incidents such as the centre’s director, the leading author of the IPCC 4AR, Phil Jones, writing to Pennsylvania State University’s Michael E. Mann questioning whether the work of sceptic academics deserves to make it into the prestigious IPCC report. In another e-mail there is discussion on how an academic journal can be pressured not to accept the work of scientists with whom they disagree.
The ethics of climate science are questioned and some perceive some of the world’s leading climate scientists to be more dedicated to promoting the alarmist political agenda than scientific research. Two broad issues are clearly impeding the public credibility of climate research: lack of transparency and a so-called ‘tribalism’ amongst the climate research community, impeding peer review and the assessment process.
This information and the growing evidence of lack of transparency, as in the case of the HADCRU surface climate data set and the paleoclimate data set that has gone into the various ‘hockeystick’ analyses, have led to confusion. Data sets that are now regarded as essential elements of the climate data record have often been proved to contain elements whose raw data or metadata were not preserved or handled according to basic scientific requirements or in some cases were even purposely deleted. This, together with the fact that the temperature rise during the past 10 years has not followed growth in emissions, raises many questions.
Given the growing policy relevance of climate data and the lack of a sound scientific basis for many of the foundations of climate science, is the Commission worried that the EU’s decisions that affect millions and cost millions are based on unreliable information sources?
How will the Commission ensure that the climate data that the EU uses as the scientific basis for its climate policies is free of any political agenda and fully complies with the profound principles of scientific evaluation? Increasingly higher standards must be applied to the transparency and availability of such data, therefore will the Commission ensure that all such fundamental science will in future be publicly available and well documented, including metadata that explain how the data were treated and manipulated, what assumptions were made in assembling the data sets, and what data were omitted and why?
Does the Commission share the opinion — and is it willing to assess it in relation to all the science used by the EU — that the need to increase the public credibility of climate science requires publicly available data and metadata, a rigorous peer review process, and a response to arguments raised even by the sceptics?
2 March 2010
Answer given by Mrs Geoghegan-Quinn on behalf of the Commission
The recent illegal release of e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) captured much attention of the international press during the Copenhagen COP 15 Conference.
The Commission is not in a position to comment on specific claims and content of particular e-mails as such investigation is not within the Commission's mandate. The Commission takes note of UEA's decision to launch an independent enquiry on this matter.
Regarding climate data, the Commission notes that CRU/Met Office analyses are confirmed by two independent analyses by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the United States of America (USA), as well as by other indicators of climate change, not only temperature changes but also changes of Arctic sea ice coverage, continental glacier retreat and rising sea levels.
The primacy of the Assessment Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for climate change policy-making is internationally recognised and their robust findings represent an essential element of EU climate policy. The IPCC process has been designed to have the highest possible level of international transparency. IPCC summary reports have been agreed by every government of countries that are members of IPCC and have been formally accepted as guiding documents for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
The IPCC is one of the most rigorous scientific assessment bodies in existence. Thousands of scientists have dedicated their time to forming the most comprehensive and authoritative assessments of climate science available. Therefore the Commission has full confidence in the IPCC process.
The Commission, in line with the views of the Honourable Members, is of the opinion that high quality standards and open access to data and any additional information such as analytical methods applied, are vital for climate research and should be traceable.
The INSPIRE Directive(1), whose implementation is advancing rapidly, aims to create a common European infrastructure for spatial data, and is at the heart of the Commission's efforts to make publicly held data in Europe more accessible.
A full and open data policy is also being developed for the Global Monitoring for Environment and Security initiative (GMES(2)), which will make a significant contribution to climate change research, by delivering inter alia relevant information on the Essential Climate Variables based on reanalysing observational data from satellites and non-space sensors.
Both GMES and INSPIRE are contributing to the global initiative of the Group on Earth Observations (GEO). The members of GEO agreed to develop a Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS). The data sharing principles of GEOSS entail open and free access for all climate change related research activities.
Within the Environment Theme of the 7th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP7, 2007 13), the Commission has established a special clause which ensures that EU institutions and Bodies shall enjoy access rights to foreground knowledge (i.e. data and information generated within a research project), for the purpose of developing, implementing and monitoring environmental policies. Such access rights shall be granted by the FP7 Grant Agreement beneficiaries concerned on a royalty-free basis.
(1) http://inspire.jrc.ec.europa.eu
(2) http://www.gmes.info