Climate scientists are reeling this week from the discovery that someone has hacked into the email archive of one of their most prestigious research centres, the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, UK, custodian of the most respected global temperature record.
Climate sceptics have gleefully blogged that the emails, now widely published on the internet, reveal extensive data manipulation and expose a conspiracy behind global warming research. An analysis by New Scientist finds scant evidence of data abuse, but does show persistent efforts to suppress work by climate sceptics.
Mostly the researchers are exposed as doing what they are supposed to do: engaging in an often adversarial process to arrive at the truth. One long exchange ends: "This is ultimately about science, it's not personal."
Those contacted by New Scientist by and large had simple explanations for their statements. One 1999 email by Phil Jones, director of the CRU, has been the focus of media coverage since news of the leak broke last Thursday. In it, Jones discusses using "Mike's Nature trick" to "hide the decline" in temperatures. "Mike" Mann, of Pennsylvania State University in University Park, told New Scientist the "trick" was simply a published device to extend to the present a graph of temperatures derived from the analysis of tree ring data. This is done using real thermometer data.
Ostracising critics
What will prove more damaging is evidence that the researchers, who often attack their critics for not publishing in peer-reviewed journals, have sought to ostracise journals that did publish them.
In a 2003 email, Mann discusses encouraging colleagues to "no longer submit [papers] to, or cite papers in" Climate Research, after it published papers by known sceptics "that couldn't get published in a reputable journal". Mann says his complaint was that the peer-review process had been distorted to allow "extremely poor papers" to be published and points out that the journal's editor-in-chief and half the editorial board had resigned in protest.
But other comments are more difficult to justify. In 2004, Jones said of two published papers he regards as flawed: "I can't see either… being in the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
"Let me assure you there was no attempt to keep any material out of the IPCC assessments," Trenberth, of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, told New Scientist.
The correspondence also shows researchers trying to prevent critics gaining access to raw data, notably the CRU's temperature data. Publicly, they say that much of the data is covered by confidentiality agreements that prevent them sharing it. For instance, an agreement with the UK's Met Office seen by New Scientist limits access to "bona fide researchers working on agreed scientific programmes".
But equally the emails reveal researchers adamantly opposed to releasing hard-earned data to critics, to avert what they see as time-consuming harassment. This week's events suggest those decisions were ill-advised.
- Subscribe to New Scientist and you'll get:
- New Scientist magazine delivered to your door
- Unlimited access to all New Scientist online content -
a benefit only available to subscribers - Great savings from the normal price
- Subscribe now!
If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.
Have your say
I find this: "bona fide researchers working on agreed scientific programmes"
extremely disturbing. What, exactly, is an "agreed scientific programme", and who decides what that is? And who gets to decide whether someone is a "bona fide researcher"?
Something is quite fishy in the CRU, and thus in the IPCC, etc. This is plain, outright fraud, not science. And the IPCC report is thus pure propaganda, as many have noted.
I assume it means agreed by the Met Office, owners of the data. As to what they would consider "bona fide", who knows...
Considering how many people are dying in wars and famines today due to climate change, (read NS Africa wars article yesterday), I don't think the emails go far enough in rebuking and rediculing skeptics.
No one, even skeptics, is arguing that the climate is changing. The argument is whether human activities are a significant contributor, or whether this is a natural cycle of the Earth and man's industrial contributions are just a drop in the bucket.
I don't know the answer or have an opinion I can back with any evidence, but at least let's try to get the disagreement right.
why so many people say 'skeptics' insread of 'sceptics'. i thought most europeans prefer BrE.
i am a student in china learning Eglish now.
That' s why we have MS Word... Ever heard of computers or are they against your right wing religion?
You are indulging in a Composition Fallacy, presumably because you want to believe that the IPCC report is propaganda.
CRU has indeed not acted in the spirit of open scientific enquiry, but regardless of that fact, no-one has managed to invalidate the science underlying the IPCC report, and not for want of trying. There is a vast gulf between collaborating to suppress unwanted opinions, and actively falsifying data. No-one has any evidence to suggest such falsification has taken place. The data stand, and thus the report and its conclusions stand. You can't wish AGW away.
"...no-one has managed to invalidate the science underlying the IPCC report, and not for want of trying."
The IPCC is a political paper with hyperbole and exaggeration added for good measure to insure that it motivates governments into action. Steve McIntyre of "Climate Audit" has frequently written about how the IPCC panel has removed his comments from the final reports when he questioned the uncertainty bars of the science that he is familiar with.
Knowingly suppressing the state of the science is falsification and this is a fact which these emails highlight
Yes, he has written a lot about that. He usually omits detail on what is required to become an "expert reviewer". Expert reviewers are nominated *to* the IPCC by organisations taking part in the process, not sought out *by* the IPCC, and are usually automatically accepted. The IPCC is under no obligation to accept the comments of an expert reviewer. There were many expert reviewers, I believe around 2500. His comments were considered and rejected. Just because he was invited to comment doesn't mean he's right...I believe that's referred to as the "argument from authority fallacy" :)
Taking the error bars into account, the picture does not substantially change. The error bars do not change the trend line. The trend remains the same, the data still stands, and the conclusions, drawn from the data, still stand. Steve McIntyre's comments on this particular issue are irrelevant to the point I made.
Total rubbish, the error bars are very important they give weight to a trend line when the are very small and suggest caution of the data when they are big.
Steve McIntyres comments were ignored for political reasons only. Anything that doesnt agree with the AGW religion is treated as insignificant!
"The IPCC is a political paper with hyperbole and exaggeration added for good measure to insure that it motivates governments into action." - ZB
And yet all of the recent research since the last report are showing warming trends and melting trends that are above or nearly above the worst case scenario projected by the IPCC.
Are these facts not the same as in your land of Conservadopia?
The IPCC is a political paper with hyperbole and exaggeration added for good measure to insure that it motivates governments into action."
Actually it is a meta-analysis of what has appeared in the scientific press that gives a synopsis of what is known to science about the observed warming of the globe.
The IPCC reports also contain projections of future warming based on the best known science as estimated by the best known methods.
The IPCC reports give a snapshot of the current scientific consensus view on the science of global warming and future projections of that warming.
This twisted manipulated data stands because of the agenda that it serves. The public had lost confidence in AGW & Big socialist govs before this! Now with the light of day shining on the toilet known as the IPCC the public will continue to run away from AGW. You can't wish AGW is real or do you perfer climate change/lol. There is a God & a cooling planet along with these hacked emails proves it! It also shows what I already knew NS to be "A BIG JOKE"! You guys have really hurt ALL SCIENCE & we are angry. All these people need to go to jail & maybe they will! The investigations are starting where Mann & others can clear their names/lol.
@Ronnie "It also shows what I already knew NS to be "A BIG JOKE"! You guys have really hurt ALL SCIENCE & we are angry."
Please do not presume to speak for me!
Perhaps (as it seems) *you* are angry; personally I am not. Nor am I decidedly convinced one way or the other on human-caused climate change, although I think that there is a likely effect on balance of probabilities.
It seems from the emails that there was no "twisted manipulated data", only efforts to not include other viewpoints (not good, but then again I can understand a desire to not waste huge amounts of time on what the people in question considered highly dubious analyses). You may believe "There is a God", again unlike you I do not - so do not use an inclusive "we are angry" in your comments; it is unwarranted and unwanted by me at least. The most you can claim is that "some of us are angry".
It's not twisted, just PRed as is usual everywhere these days.
There probably is no god.
You appear to have missed the point where big socialist governments won, capitalism lost. There hasn't been a free market here for a while; and you woudn't want one. The free market is when you can buy the police, the judges or whoever, socialism is where citizens have responsibilities as well as rights.
Ronnie meet reality, ok then don't, but you were invited.
A brief period of cooling and the failure of models to predict does not invalidate the AGW hypothesis.
An example, when you pull back on an aircrafts control stick you would expect the aircraft to ascend. The aircraft initially looses altitude despite a positive input to the system. The result of a zero in the right hand side of the S-plane (control/systems engineering stuff).
There is a good chance that a similar effect is occurring as a result of increasing CO2.
Who knows, it may be the result of a slight change in refractive index of the atmosphere/oceans, energy of transformation (ice-water) etc...
You wait until the code is done being studied. They are finding tons of evidence in the code/code comments of fraud and number fudging.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/23/the-code.html
"You can't wish AGW away."
No but you can wish away criticism if you are a "True Believer" of AGW.
"collaborating to suppress unwanted opinions"
"No-one has any evidence to suggest such falsification has taken place". The crucial point is, Jones has not allowed others access to his raw data, so they can't replicate it. This also means that peer reviewers have accepted his data on trust without attempting to replicate it, and are thus guilty of lack of due diligence.
Jones's data may well be right. The only way to know is if others can replicate it.
It's called an 'appeal to authority' fallacy. They can't show their data, so they claim immunity from being questioned instead. Usually combined with an 'ad hominem' in which they attack their detractors' motives.
Anyone who has taken Logic 101 can see right through them.
Oh dear, we appear to be in a logic challenge :). However, there appear to be flaws in your position. Not only have CRU provided data to others (including the publicly available IPCC report), but I can also find no reference to them saying that their position is unassailable due to their employment or reputation. If you have reference to this, could you please provide it?
It's also worth noting that, as these e-mails were essentially private discussions between individuals already in agreement, it's hard to see how they would be attempting to trick each other with logical fallacies.
Hi Stephen
Please help me understand this. I thought the issue was, that Jones was evading Freedom Of Information requests to provide his RAW (unadjusted) data. It's true that the people who want this data are climate skeptics who are looking to find mistakes in it. But if they can find mistakes in it, Jones should accept that and correct things. Isn't that good science?
Are you saying that the raw data was always available, for others to attempt replication of his work?
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
"I find this: "bona fide researchers working on agreed scientific programmes" extremely disturbing." - Hick
I see, so you would find nothing wrong with uncertified researcher employees working on unauthorized scientific programs, much more acceptable.
Ahahahahah.. KooooooooK Faaaaaaaaaart
Sorry to see you're having a hard time coping with the uncovering of a massive fraud that was used to try to subvert the Liberty of billions of people.
I suppose it means a program like studying to confirm that the earth was flat or that the earth was the center of the universe in the past.
As Richard Feynman said about the Nuclear Winter idiots (Sagan, et.al.), "I don't believe these people know what they are talking about".
I gather from Dyson, Feynman would say the same about AGW.
As Richard Feynman said about the Nuclear Winter idiots (Sagan, et.al.), "I don't believe these people know what they are talking about".
Feynman never said that.
Why do you feel a need to lie about it?
It would seem that the problem here is that the media will only publish one side of the story.
Yes, but each media concentrates on different sides. Compare Daily Mail, Fox News, Earth times, The Guardian,,etc. The balance however report on the idea that the balance of expert opinion falls on. Mann generated contribution to Climate Change is highly likely and needs social and political action before it becomes a disaster.
Anyone looking for a good case study of liberal bias in the mainstream media would be well advised to mine the news on this topic
Interesting to see the BBC science news online site carrying so many global warming doom stories and cute animals in peril stories since this story came out.
Do you not think that might have something to do with the Copenhagen conference? And does it not occur to you that the sudden disclosure of these emails is oddly co-incident with the conference?
Indeed the BBC has become an outlet for the beliefs (political, Environmental or otherwise) of the top brass in the institution. I dont think i have seen the BBC present a biased argument about anything in the last few years. Every fantastic nature programme they produce has climate change reported as fact. Every documentary or report on the wars we are in, takes great joy informing us how everybody has lied to us, everyone out there especially children are dying slow agonising deaths and how Gordon Brown has ruined absolutely everything. Utter nonsense I have switched over to watching CNN who at least let me know whats happening in the world rather than reporting on why Browns bowel movements infer Satan worship. Please excuse this rant im by no means a labour/brown fanboy if/when the Tories get in Cameron will be the Devil within 6 months even if he reverses the apparent definate Climate change on Earth and Venus for that matter.
New Scientist only publishes one side of the AGW story: that climate change is man-made and will undeniably result in catastrophic, irreversible global disaster. Look how they whitewash the actions of the perpetrators in this article.
Never before in history---exept perhaps in medieval times---has there been so much hysteria over an absolutely bogus, unprovable, mistaken cause-and-effect, gobledygook bunch of lies and spinoff political agendas as there is with the issue of man-made global warming. There is no man-made global warming. Get over it.
I think the agendas of western corporations and governments are served by this more than people realize. Those who keep up the doomsaying are either manipulated fools projecting their anxieties onto the real world, or manipulators whose actions and omissions are tantamount to terrorism.
>"Never before in history---exept perhaps in medieval times---has there been so much hysteria over an absolutely bogus, unprovable, mistaken cause-and-effect, gobledygook bunch of lies and spinoff political agendas as there is with the issue of man-made global warming. There is no man-made global warming. Get over it."
You haven't got a very long memory. There was far more hysteria over the theory that smoking caused lung cancer. Except that on that occasion, the absolutely bogus, unprovable, mistaken cause-and-effect bunch of lies and spinoff political agendas turned out to be true.
But if those whose lifestyle is affected don't want to believe it, they won't, and they will use hysterical language in denouncing it.
There was no "hysteria" over smoking and lung cancer. No one claiming the end of the world is near, that we must de-industrialize or that hurricanes and conflicts in Africa are caused by it.
The evidence that smoking causes lung cancer was just that---evidence. They used scientific methods and any scientist with evidence and theories to the contrary could contribute to the debate as well.
Indeed, it only took as long to reach the public health conclusions as it did because the tobacco companies suppressed evidence. They were openly promoting the idea that cigarettes were safe and were recommended by doctors. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
"Science disagrees with you." You mean the "commonly published science" disagrees. It seems there are some minority of scientists who remain skeptical, and they are being silenced, and being denied the opportunity to convince other (open-minded) scientists of their positions.
Of course it seems like a forgone conlcusion - because only one side is being heard!
Perhaps that's because NS reflects the scientific consensus, which is largely on the side of AGW presently. Don't shoot the messenger.
Jeremy: "There is no man-made global warming."
Global climate change-- specifically warming-- is an established fact. Empirical evidence includes the early annual disappearance of the polar ice caps, the significant rise in ocean temperatures, the measurable rise in sea levels, the disappearance of glaciers and the altitude-climb of local climates in tropical mountains, etc.
The efforts of the climatologists are in trying to quantify it, not to prove or disprove it. The nit-picking of the anti-warming group does nothing to disprove the change. There is no conspiracy to deny your rights.
To the contrary: the anti-warming group is trying to tell the world that "it's not our fault and therefore there is nothing to be done that will alleviate the warming, so why try. Besides, it will cost us our profits to change our way of business."
If it isn't possible to mitigate the change, then human civilization is in great danger, and possibly all humanity.
If global warming is purely natural, there must be a natural cause for it. Previous natural cycles were caused by changes in the sun's temperature or world-wide volcanic activity. That's not happening, so what IS causing GW?
Human-caused climate change explanations at least give us hope that something can be done about it, if it's not too late already
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
The funniest part about the arguments made by proponents in this thread is that it is admitted in the emails that the world is cooling and this is totally inexplicable within the models used by the IPCC. I'm sure this means nothing: any good scientist knows a computer model is the source of all knowledge...of course any entry level computer programmer or even information theorist no input determines output; meaning, you can tweak it anyway you want ladies and gents.
A brief period of cooling and the failure of models to predict does not invalidate the AGW hypothesis.
An example, when you pull back on an aircrafts control stick you would expect the aircraft to ascend. The aircraft initially looses altitude despite a positive input to the system. The result of a zero in the right hand side of the S-plane (control/systems engineering stuff).
There is a good chance that a similar effect is occurring as a result of increasing CO2.
Who knows, it may be the result of a slight change in refractive index of the atmosphere/oceans, energy of transformation (ice-water) etc...
CIA
NSA
Means, Motive, History
All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.
If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.
PRINT
SEND
