MP Graham Stringer, widely recognized for insightful questioning of Jones at the Parliamentary Inquiry, voted against acceptance of the Parliamentary Inquiry report, against the inclusion of the Summary and against a number of individual items. In every case, Stringer was opposed by three MPs: Tim Boswell, Evan Harris and Brian Iddon.
Individual dissents were as follows.
Stringer voted against paragraph 47 which stated the following:
47. This has substance if one considers CRU’s work in isolation. But science is more than individual researchers or research groups. One should put research in context and ask the question: what would one hope to find by double checking the processing of the raw data? If this were the only dataset in existence, and Professor Jones’s team had been the only team in the world to analyse it, then it might make sense to double check independently the processing of the raw data and the methods. But there are other datasets and other analyses that have been carried out as Professor Jones explained:
There are two groups in America that we [CRU] compare with and there are also two additional groups, one in Russia and one in Japan, that also produce similar records to ourselves and they all show pretty much the same sort of course of instrumental temperature change since the nineteenth century compared to today.67
[…] we are all working independently so we may be using a lot of common data but the way of going from the raw data to a derived product of gridded temperatures and then the average for the hemisphere and the globe is totally independent between the different groups.68
He voted against paragraph 51 which read as follows:
51. Even if the data that CRU used were not publicly available—which they mostly are—or the methods not published—which they have been—its published results would still be credible: the results from CRU agree with those drawn from other international data sets; in other words, the analyses have been repeated and the conclusions have been verified.
He proposed an amendment to paragraph 66, to leave out from the beginning to “We” in line 6 and insert “We have not taken enough evidence on this matter to come to a final conclusion”.—(Graham Stringer.) Paragraph 66 read as follows:
66. Critics of CRU have suggested that Professor Jones’s use of the words “hide the decline” is evidence that he was part of a conspiracy to hide evidence that did not fit his view that recent global warming is predominantly caused by human activity. That he has published papers—including a paper in Nature—dealing with this aspect of the science clearly refutes this allegation. In our view, it was shorthand for the practice of discarding data known to be erroneous. We expect that this is a matter the Scientific Appraisal Panel will address.
He proposed an amendment to paragraph 132 as follows: to leave out from “science” in line 6 to the end and add “it would be necessary for the whole of climate science to increase its transparency and improve its scientific methodology”. Paragraph 132 reads as follows:
132. Reputation does not, however, rest solely on the quality of work as it should. It also depends on perception. It is self-evident that the disclosure of CRU e-mails has damaged the reputation of UK climate science and, as views on global warming have become polarised, any deviation from the highest scientific standards will be pounced on. As we explained in chapter 2, the practices and methods of climate science are a key issue. If the practices of CRU are found to be in line with the rest of climate science, the question would arise whether climate science methods of operation need to change. In this event we would recommend that the scientific community should consider changing those practices to ensure greater transparency. it would be necessary for the whole of climate science to increase its transparency and improve its scientific methodology