Memorandum submitted by the
Public Interest Research Centre (CRU 45)
The Public
Interest Research Centre (PIRC) is a research group, focusing on
climate and energy policy. We serve as a resource for policymakers and the
public, drawing on scientific and technical materials to provide a clear
analysis of their public policy implications.
PIRC
welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence. In particular, we will focus on
the implications of the CRU leak for the integrity of scientific research.
Declaration
of Interests
Established in 1972, the Public Interest Research
Centre is an independent charity (Registered No. 266446). Our funding is
provided by charitable foundations and individual donations. We do not receive
any corporate or government funding.
1. Phil JonesÕ frequently
cited proposal to employ ÒMikeÕs nature trickÓ to Òhide the declineÓ
[1] does
not refer to any attempt to literally conceal information, or decline in the
established temperature record.
2. This decline refers not to the
temperature record, but to one paleo-climate record derived from tree-rings
beyond the 1960s, universally recognized as divergent from established,
directly observed late-twentieth century temperature records. Jones was
preparing a reliable long-term temperature reconstruction for the World
Meteorological Organisation, combining earlier tree-ring data with late 20th century
temperature records. As the Pew Centre on Global Climate Change note,
ÒIt cannot be said that Jones
was literally hiding this fact because two years before he wrote this email he
was a co‐author on the first paper to document this ÒdivergenceÓ issue. That
paper, published in Nature in February of 1998, concluded
publicly that these post‐1960 tree ring data produce inaccurate temperature
estimatesÓ.[2]
3. This background information is
referenced in the WMO reconstruction to which Jones was contributing.[3] It
is thus clear that none of this information was hidden. The word ÒtrickÓ occurs
frequently across the scientific literature, employed to mean essentially a statistical
device, mechanism or Òclever thing to doÓ in handling data.
4. Remarks concerning our inability to explain the apparent recent slowdown
in rising temperatures refer to the details and complexities of tracking energy
flows in the earth system, not whether climate change has stopped.
5. In another much-cited email, Dr
Kevin Trenberth notes the ÒtravestyÓ of being unable to explain very recent,
short-term variabilities in the overall global temperature trend.[4]
This opinion is not simply privately expressed here, but offered alongside a
reference to a publicly available, published paper on the issue.[5]
The idea that Òprivate doubtsÓ have been concealed from the public is therefore
entirely without foundation.
6. In this paper Trenberth
ÒunequivocallyÓ backs the scientific consensus on climate change.[6]
The issue he raises concerns nuances Ð
in particular, short-term temperature variabilities Ð in this
overall picture. TrenberthÕs area of study centres around the tracking of
energy flows into and out of the climate system. His comment concerns the fact
that, in his words Ò[t]he observing system we have is inadequateÓ in the
difficult and important task of accounting for the complexities in the various
mechanisms by which the earth system absorbs and releases heat Ð within the
overall context of man-made climate change.
7. Trenberth wrote in a public
statement:
ÒIt 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.Ó[7]
8. The structure of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
precludes individual scientistsÕ Òkeep[ing] outÓ material or Òredefine[ing]
peer-reviewÓ in preparing reports Ð and the IPCC process was demonstrably not
manipulated in this way.
9. In one email, Phil Jones appears to
suggest that he and another scientist will endeavour to deliberately Òkeep outÓ
two papers from the IPCCÕs Fourth Assessment Report.[8]
This is undoubtedly an ill-advised remark, but must be considered in context.
The comment was made in private correspondence, in which frivolous or
semi-serious comments can be made in haste. Climate scientist Michael Mann
comments, ÒNo-one gets to redefine what Ôpeer reviewedÕ means, and the exclamation
point underlines the fact that this was hyperbole.Ó[9]
10. The exclusion of these papers demonstrably did
not happen: these (highly contentious) papers were discussed in the IPCC
report, the IPCC process precluding any such attempt at manipulation by individual
scientists. As the Pew Centre note:
Òwhen writing their individual
research papers, scientists are free to choose which published papers to cite
based on their own judgment, and it is not standard practice to cite all
relevant publications, since many are redundant and some lack credibility. In
this case, the authors were contemplating the refusal to cite two discredited
papers in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. In the end, since IPCC reports are
more inclusive and comprehensive than individual research papers, both of the
suspect papers were cited and discussed (p. 466 of the Working Group I report
cites Soon and Baliunas, 2003 and McIntyre & McKitrick, 2003; http://www.ipcc.ch/
pdf/assessment‐report/ar4/wg1/ar4‐wg1‐chapter6.pdf).Ó[10]
11. In considering this remark, the Committee must
take into account these relevant mitigating factors. Its context raises doubts
as to the seriousness with which it was made. These doubts are reinforced by
the IPCC processes themselves, which are not susceptible to such manipulation,
and by the fact that no evidence of wrongdoing was revealed.
12. Proposals
by senior scientists Ð discussed as an option Ð to exclude flawed material from
peer-reviewed journals represent a legitimate extension of the peer-review
process in extraordinary circumstances.
13. As Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt note, despite
its importance as an authenticating and legitimating mechanism for scientific
material, peer-review is not infallible, and can be undermined:
ÒPut simply, peer review is
supposed to weed out poor science. However, it is not foolproof Ñ a deeply
flawed paper can end up being published under a number of different potential
circumstances: (i) the work is submitted to a journal outside the relevant
field (e.g. a paper on paleoclimate submitted to a social science journal)
where the reviewers are likely to be chosen from a pool of individuals lacking
the expertise to properly review the paper, (ii) too few or too unqualified a
set of reviewers are chosen by the editor, (iii) the reviewers or editor (or
both) have agendas, and overlook flaws that invalidate the paperÕs conclusions,
and (iv) the journal may process and publish so many papers that individual
manuscripts occasionally do not get the editorial attention they deserve.
ÒThus, while un-peer-reviewed claims should not be given much credence, just
because a particular paper has passed through peer review does not absolutely
insure that the conclusions are correct or scientifically valid.Ó[11]
14. It is clear that the concern discussed in the emails
is that two journals Ð Climate Research and Geophysical Research
Letters Ð are publishing material that is Òdeeply flawedÓ,
ÒcrapÓ; Òcrap scienceÓ, in each case apparently on account of an editorial
agenda.[12]
The scientists discuss various solutions: writing rebuttals in the journals;
sending a letter of protest, signed by a large number of distinguished
scientists, to the publishers, expressing their loss of faith in the journalÕs
conduct; bypassing the publication altogether; or gathering and presenting Òa
clear body of evidenceÓ of the editorial agenda compromising the publication.
As the Pew Centre note:
ÒTo interpret this
correspondence in proper context, one must recognize that science is a
community‐based professional enterprise. It is expected and appropriate that
investigators choose in which journals to publish and recommend to their peers
in which journals to publish or not publish. The notion of organizing a boycott
against any journal that repeatedly departs from accepted scientific standards
is both reasonable and ethical.Ó[13]
15. Any attempt to exclude material evidently held
to be flawed from leading journals must be compared with routine decisions by
editors and reviewers to reject publication of material. Rather than an attempt
at ÒsuppressionÓ, this seems simply to have been an attempt to uphold the
integrity of peer-review Ð an important but not infallible process Ð in one
publication.
16. Guardian
journalist Fred Pearce raises concerns that the putative independence and
anonymity of the peer-review process was compromised in some cases.[14]
Mann suggests this is misleading:
ÒAn
editor often asks the scientists being criticised to review a new submission
critical of their work. This is in fact expected behaviour since it often
allows any misunderstandings or misinterpretations to be resolved ahead of
time. It does not imply that the criticised authors have veto power over
criticism. The role of the editor is explicitly there to adjudicate these issues
and obviously will take into account potential conflicts before making
decisions based on *all* of the reviews. The problems most often arise - such
as in Soon and Baliunas (2003) or McIntryre and McKitirck (2003;2005) when the
criticised authors are not involved at all.Ó[15]
17. Unjustifiable
attempts appear to have been made to withhold or prevent the release of
information, in the context of: (a) a campaign of harassment, misrepresentation
and vilification by a major industry-backed lobby; (b) CRUÕs contractual
obligations to keep some data out of the public domain.
18. Some emails suggest attempts to keep scientific
data out of the public domain, and possibly to delete emails either in
anticipation of or response to FOI requests. While such behaviour is unjustifiable,
the emails concerned contain evidence of the overarching context of these
remarks: the concerted campaign of harassment, misrepresentation and
vilification to which the scientists were exposed. As Phil Jones says in one of
the emails concerned, ÒAs an aside and just between us, it seems that Brian
Hoskins has withdrawn himself from the WG1 [Working Group 1 of the IPCC] Lead
nominations. It seems he doesnÕt want to have to deal with this hassle.Ó[16]
NCARÕs Caspar Amman wrote in one email: ÒOh MAN! will this crap ever end??Ó[17]
Gavin Schmidt writes in one email of the way FOI requests were used to harass
scientists:
ÒThe
contrarians have found that there is actually no limit to what you can ask
people for (raw data, intermediate steps, additional calculations, residuals,
sensitivity calculations, all the code, a workable version of the code on any
platform etc.), and like Somali pirates they have found that once someone has
paid up, they can always shake them down again.Ó[18]
19. One FOI
submission to the UEA by Climate Audit contained the following paragraph:
ÒI
hereby make a EIR/FOI request in respect to any confidentiality agreements) restricting
transmission of CRUTEM data to non-academics involing the following countries: [insert 5 or so countries that are different
from ones already requested 1]Ó (emphasis added).
20. The
request, clearly designed to generate repeated FOI submissions, was treated as
vexatious and turned down.
21. Nature
blogger Olive Heffernan notes:
ÒBetween
24 July and 29 July of this year, CRU received 58 freedom of information act
requests from McIntyre and people affiliated with Climate Audit. In the past
month, the UK Met Office, which receives a cleaned-up version of the raw data
from CRU, has received ten requests of its own.Ó[19]
22. John Houghton, former co-chair of the IPCC told
the BBC that information was routinely leaked and manipulated in the public
domain by a critical fossil fuel industry lobby to undermine the IPCC:
ÒProfessor
Houghton said that in future it would be wise to offer the IPCC protection from
harassment in its work. ÒIPCC meetings were open to all Ð including
(representatives) from organisations such as [fossil fuel industry lobbying
coalition] the Global Climate Coalition whose clear agenda was to weaken our
work and our conclusions.
ÒA particular way they continually did this was to publish selected provisional
material from the IPCC process, for example draft chapters or contributions not
meant for publication, and used this to discredit the IPCC and the process.
ÒFor people being targeted, it is very difficult to be completely open when
provisional material emerging during the process is being used as stick to beat
the scientists with.Ó[20]
23. This does not excuse failures to adhere to the
openness that robust scientific practice demands, or apparent attempts to
circumvent FOI requests, but helps explain why Ð absent malicious or
conspiratorial motives Ð information was withheld.
24. As the Pew Centre note, the CRU had contractual
obligations to keep some data private Ð problematic in terms of transparency,
but fundamentally an institutional problem:
ÒThe
CRU is barred by non‐publication agreements with some countriesÕ meteorological
services from releasing to the public a small amount (less than 5%) of the
weather station data the CRU uses to estimate land‐surface temperature trends.
The university has confirmed that the CRU is legally barred from releasing
these data. A few commentators have used this situation as a basis for accusing
the CRU of suppressing data.Ó[21]
25. Gavin Schmidt notes:
ÒFrom
the date of the first FOI request to CRU (in 2007), it has been made abundantly
clear that the main impediment to releasing the whole CRU archive is the small
% of it that was given to CRU on the understanding it wouldnÕt be passed on to
third parties. Those restrictions are in place because of the originating organisations
(the various National Met. Services) around the world and are not CRUÕs to
break. As of Nov 13, the response to the umpteenth FOI request for the same
data met with exactly the same response. This is an unfortunate situation, and
pressure should be brought to bear on the National Met Services to release CRU
from that obligation. It is not however the fault of CRU.Ó[22]
26. In investigating CRUÕs responses to FOI
requests, the Committee must determine whether such requests represented a
pernicious form of harassment through unreasonable, time-consuming requests for
extraordinary quantities of data; and whether information was withheld due to
contractual obligations.
27. No
relevant evidence or data has had to undergo a correction or been found to be
wrong as a result of the affair.
28. As Myles Allen, head of the Climate Dynamics
group at Oxford, has commented, the CRU leak leaves us Òwithout any
evidence that any number, anywhere, is actually wrong.Ó[23]
ÒIf
it could be proved that figures had been deliberately altered to give a
specific result then it would be very serious, but so far no evidence has
emerged from these Climatic Research Unit (CRU) emails of any error in the
HadCRUT instrumental temperature record at the centre of the row, never mind
proof of deliberate intent to mislead. ÉÓ
29. Fred
PearceÕs investigation for the Guardian
has substantiated this: none of the emails indicates extant erroneous
information in the scientific literature requires correction.
30. The data
sets and scientific literature the emails discuss represent a small portion of
the scientific evidence supporting anthropogenic climate change. The flaws and
compromises widely alleged are insufficient to seriously undermine this
evidence.
31. As Nature note:
ÒNothing
in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real Ñ or
that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by
multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely
independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails.Ó[24]
32. The Pew Centre explain:
ÒThe
two data sets highlighted in accusations of misconduct are very limited and
consist of:
¥
High-latitude tree ring data that inaccurately suggest that local temperatures
declined after 1960; thermometer readings from the same locations demonstrate
that the tree rings accurately reflected local temperatures prior to, but not
after 1960.
¥ A
small fraction of the weather station data used by the CRU to estimate global
surface temperature change É
ÒThe
key point is that those data that comprise the most important evidence for
human‐induced climate change are not in play in the emails, including those
documenting:
¥ snow
and ice cover
¥ sea
level rise
¥ ocean heat content
¥ surface temperature records
maintained in the U.S. (NASA, NOAA)
¥ upper and lower atmospheric
temperatures monitored by satellites
¥ atmospheric water vapor
¥ greenhouse gases
¥ solar activity
¥ modeling experiments
ÒAs a result, the evidence for rapid warming of the Earth in recent decades
remains unequivocal, including:
¥ Worldwide loss of snow and
ice
¥ Rising sea levels
¥ Records of rising global
surface temperatures maintained in the U.S. by NASA and NOAA
ÒFurther, the evidence for human dominance of recent warming remains very strong,
including:
¥ Concomitant warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere (a
greenhouse effect signature)
¥ Without the strong warming
effect of human-induced rise in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the
observed changes in solar activity over the past several decades would have led
to a slight cooling of the EarthÕs surface.
¥ Climate models only reproduce
the warming of the past 50 years when they include the observed rise in
atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.Ó[25]
33. In conclusion, whilst this affair certainly
merits further investigation, the mediaÕs allegations of wrongdoing have been
decontextualised and seriously exaggerated.
The Public Interest Research Centre
February 2010
[1] Email from Phil Jones to colleagues, 16 November 1999.
Available at: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=154.
[2] Analysis of the Emails from the University of
East AngliaÕs Climatic Research Unit, Pew Centre on Global Climate Change
report, December 2009. Available at: http://www.pewclimate.org/science/university-east-anglia-cru-hacked-emails-analysis.
[3] ÒCRU
update 2Ó, 24 November 2009. Available at http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/CRUupdate
[4] Email from Kevin Trenberth to colleagues, 12 October
2009. Available at: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php%3Feid%3D1048%26filename%3D1255352257.txt
[5] Kevin
Trenberth, ÒAn imperative for climate change
planning: tracking EarthÕs global energyÓ, Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability, Vol. 1,
pp. 19-27; doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. Available at: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final2.pdf.
[6] Peter
Sinclair, ÒClimate Crock Sacks Hack
Attack Part 1Ó. Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P70SlEqX7oY.
[7] Kevin
Trenberth, ÒStatement: Kevin Trenberth on Hacking of Climate FilesÓ. Available
at: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/statement.html.
[8] Email from Phil Jones to colleagues, July 8 2004.
Available at: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php%3Feid%3D419%26filename%3D1089318616.txt.
[9] Correspondence with Michael Mann, February 2010.
[10] Pew Centre, op cit.
[11] ÒPeer review: a necessary but not sufficient conditionÓ, Realclimate, 20 January 2005. Available
at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/peer-review-a-necessary-but-not-sufficient-condition/.
[12] Email
from Michael Mann to colleagues. Available at: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php%3Feid%3D484%26filename%3D1106322460.txt;
Email from Tom Wigley to colleagues, 24 April 2003. Available at: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php%3Feid%3D307%26filename%3D1051190249.txt.
[13] Pew Centre, op cit.
[14] Fred
Pearce, ÒEmails reveal strenuous efforts by climate scientists to ÔcensorÕ
their criticsÓ, Guardian, 9 February
2010. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/peer-review-block-scientific-papers.
[15] Correspondence with Michael Mann, February 2010.
[16] Email
from Phil Jones to colleagues, 20 August 2008. Available at: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=914.
[17] Email
from Caspar Amman to colleagues. Available at: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=887.
[18] Email
from Gavin Schmidt to colleagues. Available
at: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=939.
[19]
ÒMcIntyre versus Jones: climate data row escalatesÓ, Climate Feedback, 12 August 2009. Available at: http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2009/08/mcintyre_versus_jones_climate_1.html.
[20]
ÒHarrabin's Notes: Debating the IPCCÓ, BBC Online. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8387365.stm.
[21] Pew Centre, op cit.
[22] Gavin
Schmidt, ÒThe CRU Hack: ContextÓ, Realclimate,
23 November 2009. Available online at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-context/.
[23] Myles Allen, ÒScience forgotten in climate emails
fussÓ, Guardian, 11 December 2009.
Available online at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/11/science-climate-change-phil-jones.
[24] ÒClimatologists Under PressureÓ, op cit.
[25] Pew Centre, op cit.
|