Minority Students UK

In his first public appearance since the beginning of the emails row Phil Jones tells MPs he will be cleared of accusations

Read our live coverage from the hearing

The scientist at the centre of a media storm over global warming research admitted today he had sent "awful emails" but said he expected to be cleared of accusations that he tried to pervert the scientific process.

Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, told a parliamentary inquiry that there was nothing in the hundreds of emails released on to the internet last year that supported the claims.

"I was just commenting that those papers weren't very good," Jones said. "There is nothing that [shows] that me or the CRU were trying to pervert the peer review process in any way."

In his first public appearance since the emails were released in November, Jones faced repeated questions about the way the CRU failed to make publicly available the raw data and computer codes needed to reproduce its work. "It is not standard practice to provide codes and methods," he said. "Perhaps it should be."

He said much of the raw data were available from other sources, such as Nasa, and that there was nothing to stop somebody repeating his calculations and constructing their own temperature records. "There is nothing rocket science in them," he said of his academic publications.

Asked about emails in which Jones refused to share his data with critics, he said: "I've obviously written some really awful emails." But he insisted that the collection of emails made public were "a tenth of one per cent" of his correspondence over the period.

The controversy over the emails, dubbed "climategate" by some, has prompted allegations of scientific misconduct and attempts to keep dissenting findings from scientific journals. It has also raised questions about the validity of the global temperature record used to demonstrate global warming, based on email that scientists used a "trick" to "hide the decline".

Under questions from the committee, prominent climate sceptics Nigel Lawson and Benny Peiser, who represented the Global Warming Policy Foundation, conceded that the use of the word "trick" was innocuous. Lawson said the issue was that the scientists had not disclosed the way they blended several separate data sets into single graph, which he called a "fudge". Jones said this was not true, and the technique was widely discussed in scientific papers.

Lawson and Peiser said they did not think the release of the emails questioned the underlying science of climate change. "This is nothing to do with the basic science, that's not the issue," Lawson said. Peiser said the emails had "tarnished the image of British science around the world".

Jones said some issues raised by the emails, 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.

Former information commissioner Richard Thomas told the committee he could not comment on whether the university had broken the rules, as a recent statement from the information office suggested. But he suggested that there was a stronger case for public disclosure when data had been used to influence public policy, such as in climate science.

Edward Acton, vice-chancellor of the University of East Anglia, told the committee he hoped to announce the chair of a new inquiry, into the scientific findings of the CRU, later this week. The university has already set up a panel to assess the behaviour of Jones and colleagues, which is headed by Sir Muir Russell.

Acton said the university was "longing to publish" the restricted data and had worked with the Met Office to release details. He said he was "puzzled" by the statement from the information office, because no breach of the rules had been established.

In a highly critical written submission to the committee, the Institute of Physics said the emails raised "worrying implications... for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method".

The institute said: "The emails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the [temperature] reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented."

It added: "There is also reason for concern at the intolerance to challenge displayed in the emails. This impedes the process of scientific 'self correction', which is vital to the integrity of the scientific process as a whole, and not just to the research itself."

John Beddington, the government's chief scientiific adviser, told the committee the institute's view was "premature" and that they should wait until the Russell inquiry publishes its findings in the spring.

Bob Watson, chief scientist at the environment department Defra said the media have portrayed the email affair as a crisis, but there are no adverse conclusions on the science of global warming. He said it was beyond debate that the climate has changed markedly over the last century.

• Hacked climate science emails
• Climate change
• Climate change scepticism
• Climate change
• Hacking
• University of East Anglia
• House of Commons
• Green politics
• Freedom of information

IPCC ends investigation of retired constable and police worker

No further action will be taken against a retired police officer and a civilian staff worker arrested over claims that evidence was hidden during the Stephen Lawrence murder inquiry, the police watchdog has announced.

A 62-year-old retired constable and 53-year-old member of police staff were arrested in December on suspicion of perverting the course of justice by allegedly failing to pass on information relating to the killing.

The two were arrested after a Metropolitan police review into the 1993 murder inquiry uncovered material it was feared had not been disclosed during the original investigation nor two subsequent inquiries into the case.

A spokeswoman for the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) said: "No further action will be taken against the two men arrested following concerns identified by the internal Metropolitan police service (MPS) review of the murder of Stephen Lawrence."

The two, who have not been named, had been released from bail. Officials are preparing to publish a full report revealing the circumstances of the suspected non-disclosure of information.

"The IPCC investigation is nearing conclusion and its findings will be published in due course," said the spokeswoman.

Mr Lawrence, 18, was murdered at a bus stop in Eltham, south-east London, in April 1993. No-one has been convicted of the killing. Five men – Neil Acourt, his brother Jamie, David Norris, Gary Dobson, and Luke Knight – were arrested but charges against Neil Acourt and Knight were dropped because of insufficient evidence. Dobson, Knight and Neil Acourt were acquitted after a private prosecution bought by the Lawrence family collapsed at the Old Bailey in 1996.

A small team of Scotland Yard detectives continue to probe the death.

• Stephen Lawrence
• Crime
• Police

• Administrator confident debenture status is valid
• Portsmouth back at high court tomorrow

Portsmouth must return to the high court tomorrow after Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs challenged its voluntary administration.

Andrew Andronikou, the administrator in charge of the Premier League club, was told of the latest development today.

Despite uncertainty over the nature of HMRC's objection, Andronikou is confident Portsmouth will continue down the route of administration as planned. "We're having to go to court to show that the debenture is valid," he said. "I don't understand the exact reason why this is, we're just following normal protocol. We're not unduly worried.

"It's not standard procedure but I'd imagine that HMRC are basically crossing their Is and dotting their Ts. We're expecting the administration to proceed as it was."

27 May 2009: Club accepts takeover bid from Sulaiman al-Fahim.

21 July: Fahim passes Premier League's "fit and proper persons" test and immediately joins Portsmouth board, although the takeover is not yet finalised.

19 August: Club opens negotiations with a consortium fronted by the chief executive, Peter Storrie, over a possible takeover.

26 August: Fahim completes takeover.

1 October: Club admits failing to pay players' wages on time.

5 October: Fahim sells 90% of his Portsmouth shares to Ali al-Faraj.

7 October: Avram Grant appointed director of football.

28 October: Premier League issues embargo on Portsmouth registering new players until they pay off debts to Chelsea and Arsenal for the signings of Glen Johnson and Lassana Diarra respectively.

24 November: Manager, Paul Hart, sacked.

26 November: Club announces Grant will be next manager.

3 December: Club confirms payment of players' wages has again been delayed.

4 December: Club announces players have been paid.

10 December: Club responds to speculation over its future by insisting it are not about to go into administration. In a statement it also reveals HMRC had been paid £2m and "other historical arrears are being dealt with on an ongoing basis".

30 December: Club denies being formally served with a winding-up petition by HMRC.

31 December: For the third time this season, the players' salaries are not paid on time. Club says December salaries will be paid on 5 January thanks to a short-term loan.

4 January 2010: Non-playing staff are paid.

5 January: Player payments are again delayed, club tells Professional Footballers' Association, adding that wages should be processed on 6 January.

7 January: Portsmouth's players are paid their December wages.

14 January: Premier League board confirms it will distribute broadcast fee payments directly to Portsmouth's football creditors, domestic and overseas.

19 January: Portsmouth's application for a winding-up petition made against them by HMRC to be struck out is dismissed by a high court judge. Club nevertheless releases a statement insisting it is "confident" of winning an appeal.

20 January: Club confirms a former player, Sol Campbell, is suing it for fees and bonuses he is owed.

26 January: Premier League lifts transfer embargo.

27 January: Portsmouth sell their defender Mike Williamson to Newcastle for an undisclosed fee.

28 January: Official club website briefly shut down due to failure to maintain payments to Juicy, the company responsible for running www.portsmouthfc.co.uk.

28 January: Club waits for Younes Kaboul's £5m transfer to Tottenham to go through, and funds to clear, before it can pay monthly wage bill.

30 January: Kaboul joins Tottenham.

3 February: Club pays January wages.

4 February: Hong Kong businessman Balram Chainrai's company Portpin take controlling interest in Portsmouth from Faraj after exercising a clause in their agreement over a £17m loan made to the Saudi.

9 February: Portsmouth fails to agree a deal with HMRC to pay a portion of their outstanding tax bill and reschedule the remainder.

10 February: High court gives the club one week to draw up a statement of its financial affairs as it seeks to avoid HMRC winding-up order.

17 February: Portsmouth presents a statement of financial affairs at high court.

20 February: Club has a bid for permission to sell players outside the transfer window rejected by the Premier League.

21 February: Storrie reveals a South African consortium is pursuing a deal to buy the club.

22 February: Former owner Fahim quits as non-executive chairman and passes on his 10% shareholding to the club's supporters' trust.

23 February: Chainrai confirms Portsmouth will go into administration if a new buyer has not been found by 26 February. Earlier, New Zealand-based businessman Victor Cattermole admitted his interest in buying Portsmouth, but said a deal would not be in place before Portsmouth's high court date on 1 March.

25 February: Club's owner's spokesman confirms Pompey has started process of going into administration.

26 February: Portsmouth confirms it has gone into administration.

1 March: HMRC challenge voluntary administration process, meaning club must return to high court on 2 March.

• Portsmouth
• Business