Scientist says 'Climategate' e-mails were awful

Published on Monday 1 March 2010 21:54

THE scientist at the centre of the "Climategate" row has admitted that he sent some "awful e-mails" but insists that his findings on global warming were robust and verifiable.

Professor Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia yesterday faced a barrage of questions about the way he failed to make publicly available the raw data behind his work.

He was questioned by the parliament's science and technology committee, in his first public appearance since hundreds of leaked e-mails sent by scientists at the CRU were published on the internet in November.

Asked about the e-mails in which he refused to share his data with critics, he said: "I've obviously written some really awful e-mails."

However, Prof Jones insisted yesterday the scientific findings on climate change were robust and verifiable.

The controversy boiled up over the content of the leaked e-mails, which contained phrases such as "trick" to "hide the decline". They have prompted allegations of scientific misconduct and attempts to keep findings that do not tie in with climate change theories from scientific journals.

Prof Jones told the parliamentary inquiry that there was nothing in the hundreds of leaked e-mails published on the internet last year that suggested efforts to "pervert" the evidence.

"There is nothing that (shows] that me or the CRU were trying to pervert the peer review process in any way," he said.

He said the data was not released because "it is not standard practice to provide codes and methods". "Perhaps it should be," he added.

However, he said much of the raw data were available from other sources, such as Nasa.

Prof Jones said some issues raised by the e-mails, such as an apparent reluctance to comply with Freedom of Information requests, were because the CRU did not have permission to release requested data, which had been supplied by foreign weather services. Several countries, including Sweden, Canada and Poland had refused to allow their information to be supplied, he said.

Earlier at the hearing, Lord Nigel Lawson, chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a think tank, reiterated his concerns about members chosen for a panel set up to carry out an inquiry into the behaviour of the climate scientists at the UEA. He pointed out that one member had already resigned and said there was "still Sir Geoffrey Boulton".

Questions have previously been raised about whether Professor Geoffrey Boulton, secretary general of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, is a suitable member of the panel because of his strongly held views on climate change.

Lord Lawson said that although Prof Boulton was an "extremely eminent geologist", he was also a "committed climate alarmist", who spent the first 18 years of his career at the UEA.

He said he thought this choice showed "at least a certain carelessness" in the choice of panel members.

He added that it would "reduce the authority of anything that emerges from it (the inquiry]."

However, Sir Muir Russell, the former principal of the University of Glasgow who is heading the inquiry and chose the panel members, defended his choices. He added: "There will be some critics who would never be satisfied."

Lord Lawson was asked to clarify how his think tank was funded. He said it was through donations from private individuals and private charitable trusts.

"We will not touch any money at all from the energy industry or anyone who has any interest in the energy industry," he added.