Jump to content

Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/emails

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Content of the documents

[edit]

The material comprised more than 1,000 e-mails, 2,000 documents, as well as commented source code, pertaining to climate change research covering a period from 1996 until 2009.[1] Some of the e-mails which have been widely publicised included discussions of how to combat the arguments of climate change sceptics, unflattering comments about sceptics, queries from journalists, and drafts of scientific papers.[2] There have been assertions that these discussions indicated efforts to shut out dissenters and their points of view,[3] and included discussions about destroying files in order to prevent them from being revealed under the UK Freedom of Information Act 2000.[4] A review by the Associated Press of all the e-mails found that they did not support claims of faking of science, but did show disdain for sceptical critics. Scientists had discussed avoiding sharing information with critics, but the documents showed no evidence that any data was destroyed. Researchers also discussed in e-mails how information they had released on request was used by critics to make personal attacks on researchers.[5] In an interview with The Guardian, Phil Jones said "Some of the emails probably had poorly chosen words and were sent in the heat of the moment, when I was frustrated. I do regret sending some of them. We've not deleted any emails or data here at CRU." He confirmed that the e-mails that had sparked the most controversy appeared to be genuine.[6]

The quality of some of the source code included in the documents has been criticised,[7] and an associated README file has been interpreted as suggesting that some data was simply made up.[8] Myles Allen of the Climate Dynamics group at Oxford has said that the code under discussion is not that used in actual climate reconstructions, which is maintained elsewhere.[9]

E-mails

[edit]

Most of the e-mails concerned technical and mundane aspects of climate research, such as data analysis and details of scientific conferences. The controversy has focused on a small number of e-mails, particularly those sent to or from climatologists Phil Jones, the head of the CRU, and Michael E. Mann of Pennsylvania State University (PSU), one of the originators of the graph of temperature trends dubbed the "hockey stick graph."[10]

Temperature reconstructions

[edit]

A November 1999 e-mail authored by Phil Jones, states

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."[11][12][13]

"Mike's Nature trick" referred to a paper published by Michael Mann in Nature in 1998, which combined various proxy records with actual temperature records. Sceptics of anthropogenic global warming have stated that the "trick" was dishonest.[14] Mann described the "trick" as simply a concise way of showing the two kinds of data together while still clearly indicating which was which. He said that there was nothing "hidden or inappropriate" about it, and that his method of combining proxy data had been corroborated by numerous statistical tests and matched thermometer readings taken over the past 150 years.[10] The "decline" referred to is the divergence problem - the failure of tree rings in the northern hemisphere after 1960 to accurately proxy temperature trends.

An email written by Kevin Trenberth discussed gaps in understanding of recent temperature variations:

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't"[2]

James Inhofe and other sceptics say that Trenberth's "travesty" comment proves that scientists are trying to keep cooling secret because it undermines their arguments about global warming.[15][16]

Trenberth told the Associated Press that the email referred to an article[17] he authored calling for improvement in measuring global warming to describe unusual data, such as rising sea surface temperatures.[18] The word "travesty" refers to what Trenberth sees as an inadequate observing system that, were it more adequate, would be able to track the warming he believes is there.[19]

In a statement on his NCAR webpage Trenberth states that,

"It is amazing to see this particular quote lambasted so often. It stems from a paper I published this year bemoaning our inability to effectively monitor the energy flows associated with short-term climate variability. It is quite clear from the paper that I was not questioning the link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and warming, or even suggesting that recent temperatures are unusual in the context of short-term natural variability."[20]

Peer-review and Data Access

[edit]

An 8 July 2004 e-mail from Phil Jones to Michael Mann said in part:

"The other paper by MM is just garbage. [...] I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"[15]

Critics charge that scientists were suppressing scientific research by trying to keep dissenting views on global warming out of an IPCC report.[15]

The IPCC has stated that its procedures mean there is "no possibility of exclusion of any contrarian views, if they have been published in established journals or other publications which are peer reviewed."[21] In relation to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), the IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri stated that the papers that had been criticised "were actually discussed in detail in chapter six of the Working Group I report of the AR4. Furthermore, articles from the journal Climate Research, which was also decried in the emails, have been cited 47 times in the Working Group I report."[22]

A 2 February 2005 email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann includes:

"And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days?—our does! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.[23]

In another e-mail, Phil Jones writes to Michael Mann, with the subject line "IPCC & FOI":[24]

"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise…Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address."[15]

Critics say that the e-mails showed that scientists were conspiring to delete e-mails and documents to prevent them from being released.[15] George Monbiot, a supporter of the scientific consensus, wrote that Jones' resignation is warranted on the basis of his statement in this email alone.[25]

Pro-Vice Chancellor of Research at University of East Anglia, Trevor Davies, said that no data was deleted or "otherwise dealt with in any fashion with the intent of preventing the disclosure."[15] In response to allegations that CRU avoided obligations under the UK Freedom of Information Act, independent investigator Muir Russell plans to review CRU's "policies and practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act."[26]

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Reuters 23 Nov was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference NYTimes 20 Nov was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference WSJ 23 Nov was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Moore 24 Nov was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference ap_2009-12-12 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference Guardian 24 Nov was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference newsnight-code was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference computerworld was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference Myles Allen, guardian was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference PI Dec 8 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  11. ^ Cite error: The named reference Guardian 20 Nov was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  12. ^ "University of East Anglia emails: the most contentious quotes". The Daily Telegraph. 23 November 2009. Retrieved 25 November 2009.
  13. ^ Published: 8:00AM GMT 21 Nov 2009. "Climate scientists accused of 'manipulating global warming data'". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 2009-11-24.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  14. ^ Brown, Campbell (2009-12-07). "CAMPBELL BROWN Global Warming: Trick or Truth?". CNN. Archived from the original on 2010-01-06. Retrieved 2010-01-06. STEPHEN MCINTYRE, EDITOR, CLIMATE AUDIT: Sure they are. In discussion of the trick, let's be quite frank about it -- it was a trick. The tree ring records went down in the late part of the 20th century. Instead of disclosing that in the 2001 IPCC report, they did -- they didn't show the decline. […] In another document, the 1999 World Meteorological Report -- that is the subject of the e-mail in question -- they simply substituted temperature information for the tree ring information to show the record going up when it went down. There's nothing mathematically sophisticated about that.
  15. ^ a b c d e f Gibson, Eloise (2009-11-28). "A climate scandal, or is it just hot air?". The New Zealand Herald. Archived from the original on 2009-12-15. Retrieved 2009-12-08.
  16. ^ Fred Pearce (1 February 2010). "How the 'climategate' scandal is bogus and based on climate sceptics' lies". The Guardian. Retrieved 2010-02-04.
  17. ^ Trenberth KE (2009) An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 1(1):19-27. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001
  18. ^ Staff (22 November 2009). "Scientist: Leak of climate e-mails appalling". The Associated Press.
  19. ^ "Hacked E-Mails Fuel Global Warming Debate". Wired.com. Retrieved 2009-11-25. {{cite web}}: Text "Threat Level" ignored (help); Text "Wired.com" ignored (help)
  20. ^ http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/statement.html
  21. ^ ""Climategate"". FactCheck.org. 2009-12-10, corrected 2009-12-22. Retrieved 2010-01-04. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  22. ^ Pachauri, Rajendra (2010-01-04). "Climate change has no time for delay or denial". The Guardian. Retrieved 2010-01-06.
  23. ^ "Climate Science and Candor". The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company. 2009-11-24. p. 1. Archived from the original on 2009-12-15. Retrieved 10 December 2009. Editor's note: The following are emails we've selected from more than 3,000 emails and documents that were hacked last week from computers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit in the United Kingdom.
  24. ^ In Climate Hack Story, Could Talk of Cover-Up Be as Serious as Crime? by Antoniao Regalado, Science Insider, November 23, 2009
  25. ^ George Monbiot Pretending the climate email leak isn't a crisis won't make it go away guardian.co.uk 25 November 2009. "If you take the wording literally, in one case he appears to be suggesting that emails subject to a request be deleted, which means that he seems to be advocating potentially criminal activity. Even if no other message had been hacked, this would be sufficient to ensure his resignation as head of the unit."
  26. ^ "University in climate flap details inquiry reach – Outside reviewer named, will eye e-mails for data 'manipulation'". MSNBC. 2009-12-03. Archived from the original on 2009-12-15. Retrieved 2009-12-10.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy/emails&oldid=351858802"