Most scientists don't have a band of bloggers and hobbyists watching their every move—demanding their raw data, their personal e-mail messages, and even their bank records. But some climate researchers have recently faced the kind of scrutiny usually reserved for celebrities.
Hackers essentially dug through the digital trash of scientists and published the researchers' personal notes last month, when someone stole more than 1,000 e-mail messages from a climate-research group at the University of East Anglia, in England. The messages have raised serious questions about whether—under the unusual outside pressure—the scientists worked to hide inconvenient data and suppress information that didn't fit a neat pattern of man-made global warming.
As the United Nations opens a summit in Copenhagen on Monday on global climate change, U.N. officials have said that they will investigate charges that the climate scientists cooked their data and improperly manipulated the process that led to a key report by the organization's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The U.N. soul-searching follows announcements last week that two universities will investigate the e-mail behavior of their top climate scientists.
A consensus is emerging among scientists that nothing in the hacked e-mail messages would alter the scientists' conclusions: Global temperatures are rising, they say, and most evidence published in peer-reviewed journals suggests that forces related to human activity are to blame. In fact, even if the particular climate-data set compiled by the researchers caught up in the e-mail incident is discredited, at least two other major independent studies found evidence of human-caused global warming.
At issue in the so-called Climategate scandal is public trust in science and in the way that scientific findings have been used in the political process.
The latest uproar is further polarizing sides in the issue of what, if anything, should be done about global warming, with Republican lawmakers in the United States calling for hearings about the e-mail messages, and Democratic leaders rushing to condemn the theft of the messages and defend the underlying science.
In the end, the hacking incident may end up serving as a lesson in what not to do when scientists unwittingly find themselves on the public stage in a major political debate.
"I've long been worried about a backlash against climate scientists, and their strong overinsistence on the purity of what the science is telling you," said Daniel Sarewitz, a co-director of the Consortium for Science, Policy, and Outcomes at Arizona State University. "There's been an overclaiming about the uniformity of the findings on climate change, and now a tragic and not surprising backlash against an unwillingness to be open about how science and politics work together."
Frustrations of a 'Climate Auditor'
One way to understand the roots of Climategate is to talk with David Holland, a retired engineer in Britain. He has never worked as a climate scientist, but he now spends much of his time trying to expose what he sees as corruption of scientific practice by climate researchers.
He calls himself a "climate auditor," and he is one of a handful of people around the world who have made it their mission to question the science about global warming.
Mr. Holland says he had nothing to do with the hacking incident, but he has been making legal demands for the release of those same e-mail messages for years, citing Britain's freedom-of-information laws. He says he has filed seven requests with a handful of British universities asking for the release of scientists' communications (and, in one case, bank records), believing that the messages would reveal efforts to manipulate data or to improperly block his requests. He is also a co-author of papers questioning the U.N.'s major climate study, known as "AR4," or the "Fourth Assessment Report" by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Mr. Holland said in an interview with The Chronicle that he has been frustrated with what he sees as efforts to block his requests, and that such roadblocks only make him more certain that he is right. "They do not believe there should be any discussion of the scientific research," he said of the climate scientists. He seems most frustrated by the idea that scientists may be flouting the rules of how they conduct their work. "It's a bit like saying that we shouldn't bother with jury trials; we should just hang people," he said.
The hacked e-mail messages reveal scientists' disdain for Mr. Holland and other climate auditors—and suggest an organized effort to thwart their requests for information.
"Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4?" wrote Phil Jones, director of the climate unit at East Anglia in one of the stolen e-mails, apparently referring to the U.N. report. (Mr. Jones last week announced that he will step down temporarily while his university investigates the e-mail messages and their implications.)
In an earlier message, Mr. Jones said that if anyone used Britain's freedom-of-information act to demand the lab's raw climate data, "I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone."
Such statements seem to violate a spirit of scientific openness, and some observers wonder if the scientists violated laws if they followed through on their deletions.
The tone of many of the messages can be summarized as "How dare these nonscientists meddle in this."
Onerous Demands on Researchers
Mr. Jones did not respond to requests from The Chronicle for comment. But one of the scientists whom Mr. Jones urged to delete messages, Michael E. Mann, said he felt uncomfortable with the request and did not comply.
"I absolutely did not act on it, nor did I approve of it," said Mr. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University. "Phil Jones is a scientist. He's not a public-relations expert. He's not a lawyer. He was being hounded by climate-change deniers who were issuing frivolous freedom-of-information demands that had no bearing, and they were all rejected."
Mr. Mann said that the researchers were not able to release their raw climate data because some of it is protected by confidentiality agreements with governments. He argued that the scientists have made substantial efforts to answer critics—and that the messages do show plenty of time spent attempting to correct what the scientists see as misinformation by climate auditors.
"There are some that have been exploiting this situation to act out a personal vendetta against scientists with whom they have strongly disagreed," argued Mr. Mann.
An editorial published in the latest issue of the journal Nature argues that the lesson of Climategate is that climate auditors' requests have grown too insistent and onerous for researchers to handle on their own, reaching beyond what is typically shared by scientists.
"If there are benefits to the e-mail theft, one is to highlight yet again the harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers, often in the form of endless, time-consuming demands for information under the U.S. and U.K. Freedom of Information Acts," the editors argued. "Governments and institutions need to provide tangible assistance for researchers facing such a burden."
Several scientists say that Climategate might have been avoided if requests by Mr. Holland and others had been answered.
"The problem seems to be that the 'circling of the wagons' strategy developed by small groups of climate researchers in response to the politically motivated attacks against climate science are now being used against other climate researchers," wrote Judith A. Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, on a blog. "The number of such requests would be drastically diminished if all relevant and available data and metadata were made publicly accessible."
Comments
1. sharps1874 - December 07, 2009 at 08:47 am
In nothing else, the hacked emails from the University of East Anglia reveal that some climate-change scientists have actively collaborated in the politicization of their findings, some of which were clearly overstated. One manifestation of this is their insistent claim that the science is "settled" and skeptics should be labeled "deniers" (Mann) or "denialists" (Nature). The very nature of the topic precludes such certainty. If they now feel unfairly pursued, then, well, they've made their beds . . .
2. fergbutt - December 07, 2009 at 09:42 am
What's worse to me, is that the academic community, and articles like this one, are trying to minimize the impact of bad news by claiming that it doesn't matter. Why? Because it doesn't fit their political bias. And who's to say the independent data was not collected by scientists "rooting" for their own cause? It's a bad time for peer-review science and the effect of public opinion will ripple through the other disciplines.
Look at ethics chapters in textbooks: The examples are either politically neutral or in favor of the received view. The East Anglia e-mails, particularly the ones that clearly biased (not "suggested a bias in", as the mainstream media are reporting) the peer-review process, should be shown to students as undeniable examples of the worst tendencies in funded research. But it won't get into the textbooks, I predict, because it doesn't fit the leftist agenda or template of most scholars.
The writers of these emails got huge grants and I think their institutions should pay the money back. I seriously doubt the damning evidence was lost or thrown away during a move. As for climate change, yes, there is evidence of independent global warming, but the CRU date was touted by Academy-Award-winning Al Gore: Does he get to keep that Oscar? Remember, the CRU was the best evidence of anthropogenic global warming, not the usual cyclical global warming (and cooling).
It is gratifying to see the Chronicle and the three mainstream TV networks belatedly make this into a real story instead of a tiny item of interest. This is a huge story and a tremendous academic scandal, but apologists are finding it difficult to embarrass the wrong side of the debate. And it still is a debate. Science is not an enduring consensus; it's a shifting consensus. As long as the journals and the funding agencies are in cahoots, there is no science.
3. fast_and_bulbous - December 07, 2009 at 10:18 am
Here's the lesson this weather researcher learned from this ordeal: I'm encryping all my research-related email from now on.
The people who hacked into the CRU servers and retrieved these emails etc. this should be prosecuted. This was an illegal act. All the discussion and pontificating by people who know nothing of the sceitntific process is based upon illegally obtained information from selectively edited emails which were never meant for public conumption.
This is indeed a non-story and it will blow over - mark my words. The general non-science-literate public will find something else to hold their short attention before too long, and we will get back to the serious business of pumping more greenhose gases into the atmosphere.
All you overeducated bleeding hearts who understand nothing of the scientific process are irrelevant to the science of climate change. The best you can hope for is effecting change via the political process. Good luck with that. Thankfully there are enough scientists up top to bring some sanity to this non-event.
In closing, let me state that even though I may be an a******, my science is solid. You all should think about that before passing judgment on that which you do not understand.
4. tridaddy - December 07, 2009 at 11:20 am
To Fast_and_Bulbous-- As a scientist, I find your words to be self-righteous. Ah, you have all of the facts and there is nothing else to discuss. Just listen to yourself. You make us all look bad. No wonder the public has lost respect for scientists.
5. jdm0007 - December 07, 2009 at 12:13 pm
No doubt that his group kept out scientists like John Christy and Roy Spencer because they were not in the club. All of these organizations that participated in this climategate should. as a previous writer has stated, repay all of our precious tax dollars to the governments from which they received grants as well as all the private funding from foundations and other NGOs.
I encourage everyone to read the book "Unstoppable Global Warming" and look at the research behind the book and the references. Get in touch with John Christy and Roy Spencer and see their work and the validity and honesty of their material. I know they would share it with anyone interested.
JM
6. fast_and_bulbous - December 07, 2009 at 12:13 pm
I make us look bad. I don't care if I *look* bad dude. I care whether we are doing good science, period. The sooner people learn how science is done, the better the general public will be able to evaluate such events in a rational manner, not one based upon illegally obtained personal communications and sensationalism. Apparently you yourself have succumbed to this.
How would you like it if someone went through all of your emails and selected a few and twisted things to make you look like an incompetent fiend?
There is a reason why in a court of law, evidence obtained illegally has to be thrown out of court and not be considered by the jury. These scientists are being tried in a kangaroo court of the general public. Just hope that you don't find the spotlight on you someday, you may feel a bit differently about the situation.
7. dogvomit - December 07, 2009 at 12:18 pm
So they have 10 or so emails with questionable statements out of at least 1000. I heard it was more than 1000! If we assume that 10/1000 is correct, that is 0.01. 0.01 is not signficantly different from random statements or zero. This is basic stats.
8. johntoradze - December 07, 2009 at 12:23 pm
The real story here is not being reported at all!
The real story is who hacked those emails, who paid them to do it, who orchestrated this PR game, and who paid for that work just ahead of some critical votes on Capitol Hill in the USA.
The Cato Institute is swimming in it.
So who is hacking them and making their way up the food chain to the paymasters for this bit of PR warfare on the environment?
We academics are such stupid little boys and girls; really, we are.
9. davi2665 - December 07, 2009 at 01:19 pm
The moral relativists are out in force. How pathetic that they try to make themselves out to be "victims" because their emails, many associated with studies funded by public money, have come to light. This is similar to recent big pharma cases where data are conveniently left out, massaged, misrepresented, or out and out manufactured. But because we all "know" that the end point is valid (global warming caused by human industrialization), then all of those inconvenient fictitious data become merely another foot note in the rush for political action and national/global redistribution of wealth (cap and tax). It would appear that this so-called field needs a Senator Grassley, with an agency that has subpoena power (we certainly would not want to offend some of our great scientists who simply know that "we are doing good science") to get a better insight into the pervasiveness of the lack of integrity in this field. I find it difficult to buy the argument that it is only a few emails that show scientific fraud and manipulation, so the rest must be OK; what an erudite statistical conclusion. Perhaps another perspective is appropriate- that if, for political ideology or millions of dollars in gains from grant money, a so-called researcher demonstrates a lack of integrity, that is unlikely to be an isolated event that just happened to occur in the emails that came to light. It is too bad that so many fields are tilting towards becoming the best concocted stories, put together with the trappings of science, that the political ideologues can buy.
10. jaysanderson - December 07, 2009 at 02:32 pm
Uncovering dirty secrets that power brokers communicated to one another used to be called journalism. It was award-winning journalism when we found out about Watergate, now it's called "criminal hacking". Do we expect researchers to report their results honestly or don't we?
"The debate is over" (Al Gore)
Since when have we accepted proclamations from failed politicians in place of real science backed up with authentic data?
11. fast_and_bulbous - December 07, 2009 at 02:53 pm
The debate really is over, if you frame the debate as "are humans responsible for CO2 emissions and therefore causing an enhanced greenhouse effect." The details, yeah, those have yet to be worked out, but this really doesn't change the science or the immediacy of the problem. I love how everyone is now a climate scientist, intimitely familiar with decades of peer-reviewed research - yeah right - if they were you wouldn't be so quick to discount the very serious situation we face.
It is rather curious to me that e-mail evolved the way it did as essentially being sent as a postcard rather than a sealed letter. That encryption isn't built into the email protocol itself is really unfortunate. To this day most encryption software is still rather bulky and getting people you email to use it is often a pain.
There are undoubtely hundreds of more potential scandals out there. If only these brave criminals would hack into the NIH database! The emails of NSF employees! Everyone who has an address ending in .gov! Think of all of the scandals we could uncover!
12. wmartin46 - December 07, 2009 at 06:25 pm
It might be a good idea for all government-sponsored research to require publication of all documentation, emails, computer code, etc. as a required aspect of gaining access to public money.
Computer code really needs to be not only public, but it needs to be written in accordance to the prevailing ISO standard. It's a little more tedious for the programmers, but mistakes in computer code can be very hard to find. Being able to audit the code, because it was written under a reasonable coding standard (or at least a recognized standard) should be a requirement for public funding.
13. amnirov - December 08, 2009 at 06:19 am
I am an anthropogenic climate change supporter, and the issue here is not climate change science, but science itself. Primarily, the root cause is the commoditization of science. This intellectual property garbage, where every two bit boffin is convinced that their publicly-funded research is going to make them or their university rich. Well hear this: Every single public grant funded project should require absolute transparency from everyone concerned, from all collaborators, directly funded or not. Intellectual property simply should not exist. The idea of it is hateful to science and to scholarship. The people who liberated this public information are heroes.
And a note to the scientists in the audience: if your research can impact multinational treaties, impact billions of lives, change the way that trillions of dollars get spent, move populations around the globe, then, sunshine, you'd better expect that your every single word is going to be studied very very carefully. And if you don't like it, tough luck for you.
14. marka - December 08, 2009 at 08:11 pm
Good lord! If the 'fast and bulbous' [s]creed is representative of how 'science' is done, as a taxpayer, I don't want MY $$ spent on folks who want to keep communications 'secret', have 'confidential' information, will 'encrypt' so that no one can see what they are doing, and destroy evidence if pressed. Certainly not my understanding of basic underpinnings of the validity of the scientific method - namely full transparency and complete sharing of data so that others may replicate, validate, or invalidate. How could anyone possibly trust announced results when the process & underlying data are suppressed or altered. So much for the search for truth ... if you are hiding your correspondence, your data, and anything else you can think of, under basic legal standards, you are presumed to be hiding it because it is adverse to your position. So if you hide, basically, it must be because the truth would undercut your position. And to turn this around and blame the whistle-blowers is the height of arrogance. What a bunch of pompous horse-pucky. No wonder those who adhere to the religion of scientism -- as opposed to objective seekers of truth -- are berated by much of the public. I expect better of those who would call themselves scientists. And I used to have much more respect for the profession, and those within it ... if they are nothing better than partisan advocates who want to pooh-pooh anyone who dares question them, because they are fighting for recognition (Nobel prize, anyone?) or $$ (grants, prizes, etc.), they are obviously not to be trusted ...
15. bcc_meteorites - December 11, 2009 at 08:57 am
Some very compelling and interesting viewpoints. Although some are hinting at outright data fabrication I seriously doubt that is the case. But it must be emphasized that scientific misconduct and fraud is in full swing in many circles for various reasons, including monetary gain and maintiaing the status quo as agenda setters. Here is a good example of outright data fabrication and mianipulation in planetary sceince. In this fake "scientific" paper the author uses his skills and sets out to deny meteorite authenticity by planting uncertainty in the mind of the reader, accomplsihed by cherry picking data and intentionally misapplying and misinterpreting it. But notice the very first sentence of his fake paper. Once you read that there is no need to go any further with the fake paper.
http://www.bccmeteorites.com/lunar/bcc-next-analysis.htm
16. allens - December 13, 2009 at 11:51 am
"Mr. Mann said that the researchers were not able to release their raw climate data because some of it is protected by confidentiality agreements with governments." There is obviously a problem with the governments in question regarding openness! And I do have a problem with being willing to do research and publish it without also making available the raw data. I did my dissertation research solely using publically available data and software, even when it was very problematic to do so (someone else published in a major journal before I was done, partially due to the related delays); I see no reason that others should not do the same.