Climategate emails ‘did not amount to fakery’
Harassment by climate change sceptics led to bunker mentality at East Anglia Climate Research Unit
An in-depth review of the 1,073 emails stolen by hackers from the server of the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia has found that the messages, while exposing the contempt a group of respected scientists held for climate change sceptics, did not undermine the case for anthropogenic global warming.
Five reporters from the Associated Press picked through all the emails at the centre of 'Climategate'. Seven experts in research ethics, climate science and science policy were also consulted.
The emails appear to show nothing more than a group of scientists frustrated by what they saw as "frivolous" Freedom of Information requests made by climate change sceptic "frauds".
One of the supposedly most damning passages of text which many people say was taken out of context was found in a 1999 email from Professor Phil Jones, director of the CRU:
"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," wrote Jones.
‘I do now wish I'd never sent them the data after their [FOI] request!’
The "decline" concerns tree ring data that suggest temperatures since the 1950s have been cooler than scientists have observed with thermometers. 'Mike' is Michael Mann, a climatologist at Pennsylvania State University, and the man who published the famous 'hockey stick curve' that, using tree ring, ice core and coral data, shows temperatures in the northern hemisphere from around 1000AD to 1900 were largely stable before rising sharply in the last century presumably because of anthropogenic emissions.
Sceptics find the hockey stick curve controversial partly because from around 1850 Mann and his co-authors Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes include temperatures recorded by thermometers in addition to the tree ring data. Then from around 1980 they stop using tree ring data altogether, favouring temperatures recorded by thermometers instead. Sceptics say this coincides with the period of greatest temperature increase on the hockey stick curve, although in truth the tree ring data alone shows a period of rapid warming from around 1900.
So Mann's "trick" is replacing tree ring data, which he describes as misleading after 1960 because of pollution, with actual temperatures recorded on thermometers. Mann himself has never made any secret of flaws in his findings. The original title of the 1998 paper in which his curve was unveiled was: "Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: inferences, uncertainties, and limitations".
Another charge levelled at the CRU scientists was that they attempted to withhold data from climate change sceptics.
In 2005, Jones wrote: "Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them. I'll be passing any requests onto the person at UEA who has been given a post to deal with them."
And in 2008, Jones wrote to Mann: "You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we've found a way around this."
Witholding emails is one thing, but from a scientific point of view, refusing to share data needed to recreate an experiment is more serious because the verification of results depends upon it.
A former London trader, Douglas J Keenan, used data sent to him from Jones to accuse the professor's co-author, University at Albany scientist Wei-Chyung Wang, of fakery. Wang was later cleared by a university investigation, but Jones wrote in 2007: "I do now wish I'd never sent them the data after their [FOI] request!"
Ben Santer, another scientist implicated in Climategate who has received death threats for his work on climate change, told Associated Press that he and others are inundated by frivolous requests from sceptics hoping to "tie-up government-funded scientists".
Other scientists claim that even if CRU staff were withholding data, they are not alone: there is a long tradition of selective reporting of clinical trials by big pharmaceutical companies, for example.
Mann, for his part, tells Associated Press that he did not delete any data. But given the highly political nature of climate science, it is perhaps not surprising that CRU scientists were obstructionist in this respect.
In 2006, climate change sceptic and Texan congressman Joe Barton forced a hearing on the validity of Mann's hockey stick curve. The hearing - described by Gerald North, a scientist who had studied the hockey stick curve, as "not an information gathering operation, but rather a spin machine" - was highly critical of Mann's conclusions.
And since the Climategate emails came to light a month ago, they have been pounced upon by Republicans as a reason to delay a climate change bill in Congress and by failed vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin as a reason to boycott the Copenhagen summit.
‘Next time I see him, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted’
Above all what appears to come through in the emails is a sense of a bunker mentality at CRU caused by constant harassment from people attempting to derail their work in very unscientific ways.
Frustration bubbles over in the form of some blackly comic moments. One scientist, Scott Rutherford writes: "...there is a (relatively small?) group of people who don't or won't 'get it' and there is nothing we can do about them aside from continuing to publish quality work in quality journals (or calling in a Mafia hit)."
Another scientist greets the news of the death of a critic: "In an odd way this is cheering news!" While Santer supports Jones against a sceptic, saying: "I'm really sorry that you have to go through all this stuff, Phil. Next time I see [name deleted] at a scientific meeting, I'll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted."
Dan Sarewitz, a science policy professor at Arizona State University told AP: "This is normal science politics, but on the extreme end... research is a social and human activity full of all the failings of society and humans, and this reality gets totally magnified by the high political stakes here." ·
Comments are now closed on this article














Comments
For Peter Simmons: Do you think Prof Freman Dyson is challenged, ignorant? Good luck to you!
Among the skeptics of AGW, flat-earthers as called by the emminent scientist Gordon Brown PM of the UK, one strangely finds a Freeman Dyson who should be considered a dim-wit by the current standard of conscensus based science.
I urge everybody to watch 'Freeman Dyson on Global Warming 1of2 Bogus Climate Models' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTSxubKfTBU) and Freeman Dyson on Global Warming 2of2 Stratospheric Cooling (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k69HUuyI5Mk&feature=related). For the uninitiated Prof Dyson was one of the founders of Quantum Electrodynamics.
As for consensus, real scientists do not have to depend on it. "I have the sense that when consensus is forming like ice hardening on a lake, Dyson will do his best to chip at the ice," physics Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg said of him. So lets chip at the ice of AGW consensus.
Er, Mr Jose, it's interesting you should point out Svensmark's theory. It has been trashed by mainstream scientists for Svensmark's manipulation of post-1995 data to suit his hypothesis. Also, direct satellite measurements have ruled out the cosmic ray/cloud cover link. So there.
Peter Simmons - what you write, and the way you write can be seen by everyone as deranged. Talk about psychiatric help! You are thrashing about with the only weapon you have, abuse, because you've lost the argument. You are doing a terrible disservice to the people whose opinions you cling to. And you just make it all up, having no idea what you are talking about: "the 'computer code' was merely bad programming, since these are climate scoientists not programmers, and they have to write their own code in order to work." Oh, very funny! You know nothing about it whatsoever. We're not talking about the quality of the coding, but the FABRICATION of data. Can't you tell the difference? When programmers write code they have to include comments so that others later can see what they have done. Here are some comments in the coding:
"Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING - so the correlations aren't so hot!...What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have :-)",
"NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values will be much closer to observed temperatures then they should be which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful than it actually is."
"Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
(...)
;
; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densall=densall+yearlyadj"
"we know the file starts at yr 1070, but we want nothing till 1400, so we
; can skill lines (1400-1070)/10 + 1 header line
; we now want all lines (10 yr per line) from 1400 to 1991, which is
; (1990-1400)/10 + 1 lines (since 1991 is on line beginning 1990)"
Instead of polite rebuttal, Peter Simmons is once again resorting to personal attacks. What a scrotebag slimeball ! Lets see how HE likes it.
Oh do grow Simmons; rants are only a sign that you are losing the war. Let us face it, the climate is in constant change and, despite Mann's computer programmes, the climate in the middle ages was considerably warmer than it is today. That is why Bury St Edmunds, one of the wealthiest abbeys in England derived its income from its vineyards. Sadly most computer simulations are simply 21st century crystal balls.
Which part of 'actual temperatures recorded on thermometers' don't you micro brains understand? Duh.
Grow up Kevin, it was nothing, it's been revealed as nothing. You are all deranged and no matter what evidence is presented, you will deny it. You obviously haven't understood any of it, the 'computer code' was merely bad programming, since these are climate scoientists not programmers, and they have to write their own code in order to work. No one cares what you unscientific oddballs think, can't you get your head round that? You are universally derided, as anyone with a brain can see climate change is already happening and we caused it. Prat on all you like, you think your opinions are worth anything? Go and find a toy to play with.
jose - 'Left wing globalists', you don't even realise what an idiot you sound, but then you're barely literate so it's not surorising. FACT: every denier is a challenged, ignorant, believer in conspiracy theories. You all need psychiatric help. All you care about is taxes. Idiot. Your taxes won't help you when you're up to your neck in flood waters.
It is normal for left-wing globalists to practice victimology to raise sympathy for their cause. But to blame the large minority who are not government-funded (indeed, their taxes fund the government) because they mistrust the calcs of the supposed officialdom and call it 'harassment' is to redefine the role of the bully and the small kid, and, see white as black and black as white.
The CO2 scareologists do well out of it. They get paid to do govt science, produce the results they are paid to produce, get the next grant to run their labs...pay the rent, eat in the subsidised canteen...they also get to feel like they 'contribute'. But to what? We who really do get it, are paying carbon taxes to con artists. But enough of this rant, only the true theory of the mechanism of climate change can dispel all the fog of nonsense. And that theory is the Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark who has found the inter-relation between the sun's magnetic field, cosmic rays reaching the earth, and the low cloud cover created by the atmospheric ions/aerosols they create. When the sun is more magnetically active fewer cosmic rays get through, fewer are clouds are formed, more sunlight reaches the earth's surface. Less sun manetosphere, more clouds, colder earth. Read all about it in the book 'The Chilling Stars', and see the DVD by Lars Mortensen 'The Cloud Mystery' (you can google it easily). Sleep easy, pay less taxes.
This whitewash doesn't even skim the surface of what has been revealed in Climategate. The emails also show that scientists encouraged one another to delete emails so that they could never be found, and stated that they had themselves deleted them. Associated Press did a review, did they? No-one who knows anything about AP will see this as anything but circling the wagons - AP have been hand-in-glove with this climate scam for years. Their journalists are senders and recipients of these emails as well. You can produce as many of these whitewashes as you like, but behind the scenes real scientists and investigators have been looking at what has been going on and can see that there has been shameful and massive fraud. The emails are only the tip of the iceberg - why no mention of the computer code that was also released which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that data was simply made up? Much more is now coming to light showing that most of the supposed warming in the record is due to dodgy statistical analysis and tricks, and that most of the habitable parts of the earth were warmer in the 1930s than they are today (and 1000 years ago, of course). Mann's tree ring data, used as a temperature proxy, shows that temperatures have declined since the 1960s. That's why he didn't want to use that data. For Mann to say this is due to pollution is pure unsubstantiated conjecture. It's obvious why Mann would want to hide the decline shown in the proxy records. If the proxy record doesn't actually track the measured temperature record in the 20th century, then it's highly questionable whether it's a useful proxy at all. Mann's tree ring proxy was pounced upon as useful to the AGW lobby because it doesn't show the inconvenient very warm Medieval Warm Period 1000 years ago. The MWP is well attested as a fact from hundreds of other proxies and historical data. This all goes to show that Mann's results are a heap of junk. That and his petulant attitude in the emails means his reputation can never be salvaged - among those who are interested in truth, at any rate.