Open main menu
SourceWatch

Climategate

Revision as of 08:59, 31 May 2010 by Lisa Graves (talk | contribs) (SW: reformat)

{{#badges: Climate change | CoalSwarm}}

The Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, which global warming skeptics refer to as Climategate, came to light in November 2009 with the unauthorized release of thousands of e-mails and other documents obtained through the hacking of a server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, England. The University of East Anglia described the incident as an illegal taking of data. The police are conducting a criminal investigation of the server breach and subsequent personal threats made against some of the scientists mentioned in the e-mails.[1]

Extracts from the e-mails have been publicized and posted online, and allegations have been made that they indicate misconduct by leading climate scientists such as withholding scientific information, interfering with the peer-review process, deleting information, and manipulating data.[1] A December 2009 Associated Press investigation involving examination of the 1,073 e-mails by five reporters, however, found that the allegations are largely unsubstantiated and the "exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions."[2]

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change head Rajendra Pachauri has suggested that the incident was intended to undermine the then imminent December 2009 Copenhagen global climate summit.[3]

Contents

Content of the e-mails

The material comprised more than 1,000 e-mails and 2,000 documents, as well as commented source code, pertaining to climate change research covering a period from 1996 until 2009.[3] 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 Climatic Research Unit (CRU), and Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University (PSU), one of the originators of the graph showing steadily rising temperature trends dubbed the "hockey stick graph".[4]

Some of the e-mails which have been widely publicized included expressed frustration over perceived harassment by climate change skeptics, concerns about the validity of skeptics' research, and drafts of scientific papers.[3]

The leaked emails are indexed at "East Anglia Emails.com" and at "Climate-Gate.org".

E-mails involving frustration with climate change skeptics

Many e-mails expressed frustration with constant requests for data from global warming skeptics. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for government-funded research can be filed under 1993’s Shelby Amendment, drafted by Jim Tozzi, former consultant for Phillip Morris, which used the amendment to try and undermine U.S. Environmental Protection Agency research on the effects of secondhand smoke.[5] Lawrence Livermore National Lab scientist Ben Santer, who has received death threats for his climate change research since 1996, told the AP that he and other scientists are inundated by frivolous requests from skeptics that are designed to "tie-up government-funded scientists":[2]

  • Drawing upon requested climate data, former London financial trader Douglas J. Keenan claimed to have found evidence of fakery in a 1990 research paper by CRU head Phil Jones' co-author, University at Albany scientist Wei-Chyung Wang. Keenan threatened to have the FBI arrest Wang for fraud (a university investigation later cleared Wang of any wrongdoing). In response to the incident, Jones wrote in an e-mail in June 2007 that "I do now wish I'd never sent them the data after their FOIA request!"[2]
  • After not releasing data to a skeptic because it was already public, Ben Santer wrote that he then opted to "release everything the skeptic wanted — and more." In another e-mail regarding constant requests for data, researcher Keith Briffa wrote, “I believe none of us should submit to these 'requests.'" Phil Jones also e-mailed: "Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them."[2]
  • After receiving multiple FOIA requests, Phil Jones told scientist Michael Mann: "You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting FOI requests for all e-mails Keith [Briffa] and Tim [Osborn] have written." The e-mail goes against scientific requirements of openness and transparency, but no e-mails were actually deleted.[2]

Other e-mails expressed concern with skeptics having access to CRU's data, particularly Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, who both consistently attack the "hockey stick" study, a graph showing the earth's temperature steadily rising since the 1900s, partially conducted by Michael Mann:

  • A February 2, 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 [Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick] 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.[6] 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"[7]
  • In a May 2008 e-mail, Phil Jones writes to Michael Mann, with the subject line "IPCC & FOI": "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."[7] Trevor Davies responded by saying that despite Jones' suggestion to delete records, no records were actually deleted. [7]

E-mails expressing doubt about quality of skeptics’ research

Other e-mails expressed concern about the quality of research published or conducted by global warming skeptics, sometimes in conjunction with conservative think tanks:

  • When the journal, Climate Research, published a study questioning climate change that turned out to be partly funded by the American Petroleum Institute, Penn State scientist Mann suggested: "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal" because the paper in question “couldn't have cleared a 'legitimate' peer review process anywhere. That leaves only one possibility--that the peer-review process at Climate Research has been hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board…. The skeptics appear to have staged a 'coup' at 'Climate Research' (it was a mediocre journal to begin with, but now its a mediocre journal with a definite 'purpose')."[2]
  • E-mails were also critical of Steve McIntyre, a mathematician and economist who used to work for the mineral exploration industry. McIntyre maintains Climate Audit, a blog that focuses on publicizing statistical issues with scientists' attempts to recreate the climate in ancient times. McIntyre told AP that climate scientists are "overreaching in the conclusions that they're trying to draw from the data that they have." Some CRU e-mails said McIntyre's attempts to get original data from scientists were frivolous and meant more for harassment than doing good science. There are allegations that he would distort and misuse data given to him, with e-mails calling McIntyre a "bozo," "fraud," and a "moron".[2]
  • A July 8, 2004 e-mail from Phil Jones to Michael Mann said in part: "The other paper by MM [Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick] 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!”[7] IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri stated that the papers that had been criticized were not suppressed, and "were actually discussed in detail in chapter six of the Working Group I report of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report."[8]

E-mails concerning scientific data

Other e-mails expressed frustration with particular scientific data:

  • One e-mail that skeptics have been citing often since the messages were posted online is from Phil Jones: "I've just completed Mike's [Mann] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years [from 1981 onward] and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." Jones was referring to tree ring data that indicated temperatures after the 1950s weren't as warm as scientists had determined.[2] The "trick" that Jones said he was borrowing from Mann was to add the real temperatures, not what the tree rings showed. And the decline he talked of hiding was not in real temperatures, but in the tree ring data that was misleading.[2] Before the incident, continuing research had already presented reconstructions based on more proxies, and found similar results with or without the tree ring records. [9]
  • Another e-mail expressed frustration about inconsistent figures in the work for a big international report. David Rind told colleagues: "As this continuing exchange has clarified, what's in Chapter 6 is inconsistent with what is in Chapter 2 (and Chapter 9 is caught in the middle!). Worse yet, we've managed to make global warming go away! (Maybe it really is that easy...:)." The AP investigation found that the inconsistent figures for the one report does not undercut the scientific consensus on climate change.[2]
  • An email written by Kevin Trenberth discussed gaps in understanding of recent temperature variations: "Saying it is natural variability is not an explanation. What are the physical processes? Where did the heat go?", "How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!", and "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."[3] Trenberth told the AP that the email referred to an article he authored calling for improvement in measuring global warming to describe unusual data, such as rising sea surface temperatures.[10] 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.[11]

The AP investigation found none of the CRU e-mails or documents involved falsification of data or "disproved" climate change.[2]

"Climategate"

Those who oppose action on global warming, such as Glenn Beck at Fox News, have called the incident Climategate and argue that it disproves global warming.[12] Former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin called for independent investigations into the e-mails, a delay in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulation of greenhouse gases, and outright boycotts of the Copenhagen international climate talks.[2]

As noted in David Michael’s Doubt Is Their Product, those opposing government regulation often deliberately cast certainty as the standard for regulatory action, even though science is not about certainty but having replicable research results and establishing consensus, while simultaneously manufacturing doubt and uncertainty to dismiss scientific research and write off corporate regulations as unnecessary.[13]

The issue has attracted the attention of some in the congressional minority.[14]For example, Republican Senator James Inhofe called for an investigation on November 24, 2009.[15] Inhofe asserted that the IPCC and the UN "cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not."[14][16] The Ranking Member of the House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming, Republican James Sensenbrenner also declared he would attend the Copenhagen conference on climate change to tell world leaders that regardless of President Obama's promises no more laws would be passed in the U.S. so long as "scientific fascism" persists. Sensenbrenner also wrote Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, leader of the IPCC, demanding that those found to have manipulated climate change data should not be allowed to participate in U.N. reports.[17]

The controversy also spurred some calls for academic investigations:

Pennsylvania State University, Michael Mann

On November 31, 2009, the Pennsylvania State University announced an inquiry into the potential misconduct of Michael Mann, director of its Earth System Science Center.[18] The inquiry decided he had not directly or indirectly falsified research data.[19]

However, on February 3, 2010, the inquiry moved into the 'investigatory stage' following the determination that additional investigation was needed for one of the four allegations of impropriety and to determine whether his actions had caused public doubt about his scientific findings[20] A Penn State student groups protested the exoneration of Professor Mann, asserting that three panel members had incentive to protect the university's funding and had not examined the evidence while relying primarily on Mann's own statements.[21]

In April 2010, the National Science Foundation asked its Inspector General to examine Penn State's findings findings.[22]

(Mann, creator of the famous 'hockey stick' graph[] showing evidence of Global Warming for the past 900 years, received $2.4 million in Stimulus Money due to his grants from the National Science Foundation, as reported on in January 2010 by the Wall Street Journal.[23])

University of East Anglia, Phil Jones

On December 1, 2009, the University of East Anglia similarly announced an investigation into Phil Jones, its director of Climate Research.[18] Jones stepped down from his post in December, but the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (U.K.) in March declared accusations against him "largely misplaced" and has since supported his reinstatement.[24]

The report stated:

"We are content that the phrases such as 'trick' or 'hiding the decline' were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead... We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it. Rather we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention."[25][26]

State of Virginia Investigation

In April 2010 Virginia's Republican Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli asked the University of Virginia to produce "documents relating to Mann’s receipt of nearly half a million dollars in state grant-funded climate research" conducted from 1999-2005, when Professor Mann was employed by the university.[27] This investigation has been called a political "witchhunt."[28]

Freedom of Information Act Request

In May 2010, Christopher Horner, following his previous Freedom of Information Act request three years ago, stated that he would file a lawsuit against NASA for release of potential 'Climategate' emails. Horner asserted that NASA might be withholding them long enough to prevent their impact on an upcoming Senate debate on climate change.[29]

U.S. Polling and Public Perception

Following the controversy surrounding these emails, Gallup polling showed a sharp increase in the percent of Americans questioning climate change and in particular expressing skepticism about climate change.[30]

Gallup: Thinking about what is said in the news, in your view is the seriousness of global warming -- (ROTATED: generally exaggerated, generally correct, or is it generally underestimated)?
Global Warming Poll 1997 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Generally exaggerated 31% 30% 31% 33% 38% 31% 30% 33% 35% 41% 48%
Generally correct 34% 34% 32% 29% 25% 29% 28% 29% 33% 29% 24%
Generally underestimated 27% 32% 32% 33% 33% 35% 38% 35% 29% 28% 25%

Rasmussen found a similar drop-off in public belief that Global Warming is caused by human activity.[31]

Rasmussen: Global Warming is Primarily Caused By:
Date Human Activity Planetary Trends Other Reason
April 2010 33% 48% 11%
March 2010 33% 48% 8%
February 2010 35% 47% 8%
January 2010 37% 50% 5%
December 2009 34% 50% 6%
November 2009 37% 47% 5%
October 2009 38% 46% 3%
September 2009 42% 47% 5%
July 2009 39% 44% 6%
June 2009 42% 40% 10%
May 2009 39% 44% 7%
April 2009 34% 48% 7%
March 2009 41% 43% 7%
February 2009 38% 45% 7%
January 2009 44% 41% 7%
December 2008 43% 43% 6%
April 2008 47% 44% 8%

Articles and resources

Related SourceWatch articles

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Timothy Gardner, "Hacked climate e-mails awkward, not game changer", Green Business (Reuters), November 23, 2009.
  2. ↑ 2.00 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.08 2.09 2.10 2.11 Seth Borenstein, Raphael Satter, and Malcolm Ritter, "Review: E-mails show pettiness, not fraud. Climate experts, AP reporters go through 1,000 exchanges." AP Press on msnbc news, December 12, 2009.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 Andrew Revkin, "Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute", New York Times, November 20, 2009. See also, http://beta.thehindu.com/news/international/article61537.ece Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "revkin" defined multiple times with different content
  4. ↑ Faye Flam, "Penn State scientist at center of a storm", Philadelphia Inquirer, December 8, 2009.
  5. ↑ Chris Mooney,"Paralysis by Analysis: Jim Tozzi’s regulation to end all regulation", Washington Monthly, May 2004.
  6. ↑ "Climate Science and Candor" The Wall Street Journal (Dow Jones & Company): pp. 1. 2009-11-24
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 Eloise Gibson "A climate scandal, or is it just hot air?" The New Zealand Herald, November 28, 2009
  8. ↑ Peter Kelemen,"What East Anglia's E-mails Really Tell Us About Climate Change", Popular Mechanics, December 1, 2009.
  9. ↑ Mann, M.; Zhang, Z.; Hughes, M.; Bradley, R.; Miller, S.; Rutherford, S.; Ni, F. (2008) "Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105 (36): 13252–13257
  10. ↑ David Stringer, "Scientist: Leak of climate e-mails appalling" The Associated Press, November 22, 2009
  11. ↑ "Hacked E-Mails Fuel Global Warming Debate" Wired.com, November 2009
  12. ↑ Noel Sheppard,"Glenn Beck Skewers Scientists Involved In ClimateGate" Newsbusters, November 23, 2009
  13. ↑ Chris Mooney,"Review of David Michael’s Doubt is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health" The American Prospect, March 28, 2008
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 Declan McCullough, "Congress May Probe Leaked Global Warming E-Mails", CBS News, November 4, 2009.
  15. ↑ Rebecca Terrell, "Congress Launches Climategate Investigation", The New American, November 27, 2009.
  16. ↑ Matt Dempsey, "Listen: Inhofe Says He Will Call for Investigation on "Climategate" on Washington Times Americas Morning Show", U.S. Senate Committee on Public Works, November 23, 2009.
  17. ↑ "Sensenbrenner to Tell Copenhagen: No Climate Laws Until 'Scientific Fascism' Ends", Fox News, December 9, 2009.
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 "Universities take action on Climategate", Washington Times, December 2, 2009.
  19. ↑ Mike de Souza, "‘Climategate’ inquiry shows scientist didn’t falsify data", Canwest News Service, February 3, 2010.
  20. ↑ "Inquiry into climate scientist moves to next phase", Penn State Live, February 3, 2010.
  21. ↑ Samuel Settle, "Penn State's Handling of Mann Investigation Fails to Satisfy Students, Community Members", PRNewsWire, February 10, 2010.
  22. ↑ Ed Barnes, "Exclusive: Top Climate Scientist's Exoneration Won't Be the Last Word", FOX News, April 6, 2010.
  23. ↑ "Michael Mann's Climate Stimulus", Wall Street Journal, January 20, 2010.
  24. ↑ Ben Webster, "Climate-row professor Phil Jones should return to work, say MPs", London Times, March 31, 2010.
  25. ↑ Jess Henig, "Some “Climategate” Conclusions", FactCheck.org, March 24, 2010.
  26. ↑ "The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia", House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, March 24, 2010.
  27. ↑ "State of Virginia to Investigate Global Warming Scientist Mann", FOX News, April 30, 2010.
  28. ↑ Bud Ward, "Lynchburg, Va. TV Meteorologist Blasts State’s A.G. for Michael Mann 'Witch Hunt'", The Yale Forum on Climate Change & the Media, May 18, 2010.
  29. ↑ Stephen Dinan, "NASA accused of 'Climategate' stalling", Washington Times, May 26, 2010.
  30. ↑ Frank Newport, "Americans' Global Warming Concerns Continue to Drop", Gallup, March 11, 2010.
  31. ↑ "Energy Update - Voters Take Global Warming A Bit Less Seriously", Rasmussen Reports, April 19, 2010.

External resources

External articles

Retrieved from "https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climategate&oldid=478969"

You need to log in to edit this page.

Log in
Sign up