A hacker attack at a university has heated up debate about global warming, just weeks before a major climate summit begins. The attack at the end of last week exposed 1,700 e-mail messages and internal documents from some of the world's leading climate scientists.
Those messages, climate-change skeptics say, show that scientists have distorted evidence to bolster a conclusion that man-made pollution has warmed the planet. Scientists with more moderate views say they are concerned about what appear in the messages to be attempts to pressure journal editors to suppress papers that did not show global warming, or to bend the rules of peer review. The authors of the e-mail messages, meanwhile, argue that some of them have been distorted by critics, and that the writers' only sin was talking too flippantly in what they thought would remain private communications.
It is still unclear how the data made its way from a server at the University of East Anglia, in England, to the open Web. The messages span several years, but someone seems to have carefully selected e-mail messages containing the names of several prominent scientists.
In a statement issued Monday, officials from the university confirmed that the messages were stolen from a server in its Climatic Research Unit, an incident that was first reported in several blogs and newspapers on Thursday and Friday. The university is working with law-enforcement officials to investigate the matter, and the server that was attacked has been taken offline, said the statement, signed by Simon Dunford, a university spokesman. He called bloggers publishing the e-mail messages "mischievous" and irresponsible.
A Matter of Interpretation
"They've engaged in a last-minute smear campaign designed to confuse the public," said one of the scientists whose e-mail messages were published, Michael E. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University. He argued that the timing was not coincidental, with the United Nations Climate Change Conference set to begin next month in Copenhagen.
Some bloggers and climate scientists see the exposure as heroic. Theories promulgated on blogs include one that a whistle-blower leaked the data, and another that the university had accidentally left the material on an open server. University officials could not be reached on Monday to respond to those theories.
An unknown person posted the filched data to a Russian file-sharing site, in the form of a single compressed file. Someone even attempted to post the e-mail messages to a climate blog run by Mr. Mann and other scientists whose data was compromised. Owners of that blog, RealClimate, said they were able to stop the file from being posted.
Among the messages most discussed by bloggers is one in which a scientist, referring to the journal Nature, said he used "Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years … ." That appears, skeptics say, to be an attempt to make the warming trend look as severe as possible.
The Mike mentioned in the message is Mr. Mann, who says that scientists frequently use "trick" as a compliment, not to refer to an illusion. "When somebody talks about a trick in an e-mail, it's clear that what he or she is talking about is a clever way to do something, a nice approach," he said.
Calls for More Openness
Steve McIntyre, who runs the blog Climate Audit, is not convinced. Mr. McIntyre has long questioned the methods and data accuracy of climate scientists, and has pressed them to release raw climate data that the scientists say is protected by confidentiality agreements with governments.
"The issue is much more substantial than just a phrase," said Mr. McIntyre, who said he does not know whether the earth is getting warmer or not, and who believes the data is actually inconclusive. He said he is analyzing some of the documents dealing with computer code used by the researchers, hoping it will shed more light on their methods. "This is not a small issue, and this is not going away."
Judith A. Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, said that at the end of the day, the science will most likely stand up. But she said she hopes that the publishing of the e-mail messages will lead to more openness by climate researchers.
"There is nothing in the e-mails that directly discredits these data sets and findings, although the e-mails reflect some pretty inappropriate behavior with regards to the peer-review and assessment processes," she said in an e-mail interview.
One message, for instance, talks about an attempt to convince a journal not to publish a certain paper. "One approach is to go direct to the publishers and point out the fact that their journal is perceived as being a medium for disseminating misinformation under the guise of refereed work," said the message. "I use the word 'perceived' here, since whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about — it is how the journal is seen by the community that counts."
"That's certainly an attempt to influence editors," argued Patrick J. Michaels, a senior fellow in the School of Public Policy at George Mason University. "It's an attempt to influence the editors of major scientific journals and essentially blackmail them—to offer them incentives to not publish papers by what they call skeptics or people who they did not like."
He hopes that this incident will allow journal editors to "be more open to manuscripts from people arguing that [man-made climate change] may be overblown."
Comments
1. 11232247 - November 24, 2009 at 11:31 am
What is so fascinating about this global warming email scandal is how steadfastly the Washington Post and the New York Times have both avoided the story up to this point. There appears to be an appalling lack of curiosity among the journalistic staffs of our best newspapers.
If anyone ever wonders why the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, and the entire Fox primetime lineup are now thriving in a serious recession, they need only look at stories like this one.
2. tapple2006 - November 24, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Well said! If the NYT and WP would investigate further they would bolster their own credibility. Alas, science is being politicized by both the left and the right - climate change and stem cells.
Can you imagine being called a 'string-theory denier'?
3. johntoradze - November 24, 2009 at 12:55 pm
What would be far more revealing would be the exchanges among the anit-science demagogues about their plotting. Those people are working for well-heeled corporate interests using programs developed by PR experts that use the right wing fundamentalists as a base. Their messages are pure demagoguery, emotion based appeals using code words to cynically manipulate those well meaning people and rile them up with lies. Sadly, these people engage in self-brainwashing, by listening constantly and exclusively to these messages.
One can see this clearly in the commonality of message distribution channel, method of placing the message using lies and innuendo, and political agenda aligned exclusively with one political party. The same channel and method are used for attacking Obama, attacking health care and attacking climate change. The same people rise up and rant. This is so obvious it is startling that it isn't discussed head on by mainstream media.
Barney Frank had it right when he responded, "Madam, I am not going to talk with you. Talking to you is no more productive than talking to a table."
4. dank48 - November 24, 2009 at 01:38 pm
So, the fact that I note that there seems to be a "conspiracy" to keep opposing viewpoints out of scholarly journals, to pressure editors and publishers not to allow the other side to have its say, and to cook data until it says what the researchers want it to say . . . all that just shows that I'm the dupe of Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, et al.? Even though my voting history and my take on health care may not be what Rush and Glen are pushing? (Probably clever camouflage.)
And therefore you don't have to talk with me, much less listen to me. I don't see that shutting off debate, even with someone Barney Frank considers the equivalent of a table, is the highroad to truth.
5. jwgrendel - November 24, 2009 at 02:08 pm
Just in case you weren't aware, the NYT published an article about this on November 20 entitled "Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute." I don't know if there were any follow-up articles.
6. myemotan - November 24, 2009 at 02:52 pm
An epistemic danger, though not new at all, when certain physical scientists behave like certain "political" non-physical scientists! (Dr. Okhamafe).
7. charliemarlow - November 24, 2009 at 02:54 pm
For researchers to stifle opposing research and to hide their raw data (I have heard that freedom of information requests have been stone-walled, both here and in the UK) are cardinal sins against science.
Whatever one's position on global warming, there should be shock and outrage and no attempt to defend or distract attention from such actions.
If this is accepted or glosse over, where are we headed in other matters of scientific research? Or maybe we are already there.
8. 11211250 - November 24, 2009 at 02:57 pm
I object in the strongest terms possible to the slur above attributed to Barney Frank. As a table made by hand in 1786 and currently residing in the Smithsonian History of American Art Museum, I object to recent disparaging remarks that represent unfair and existentially prejudicial stereotypical tables. To compare me, a sophisticated and cultured table, one which has personally witnessed so much of the history of this nation, to dunderheaded flat-earthers and teabaggers is an intolerable insult.
9. _perplexed_ - November 24, 2009 at 03:00 pm
While I've read only bits and peices of the emails, they really tell me very little about what I would like to know. Regardless of the "trick" and what the word means in this context, was or was not the graph deceptive? Regardless about what "one approach" might be, were or were not editors and publishers actually pressured?
10. 11319762 - November 24, 2009 at 03:30 pm
The e-mails indicate academic and scientific fraud of the worst kind. This needs to be investigated and dealt with strictly or peer reviewed research will become a meaningless concept. How can we ever hold students to standards of academic integrity if what is alleged in these e-mails is allowed to go unpunished?
11. countinplaces - November 24, 2009 at 04:27 pm
As a point of academic curiosity, why would any of these researchers not share their raw data for review purposes? It would seem that this should be a stipulation to receive any sort of public funding.
12. _perplexed_ - November 24, 2009 at 04:43 pm
Please 11319762, which emails?...can you quote or provide the url?
13. 11232247 - November 24, 2009 at 08:17 pm
#12_perplexed_,
Let me help. The below url is from today's Wall Street Journal. The site offers a nice selection of emails that seem to support the charge of intellectual fraud. Read and decide for yourself if any of the writer's behaviors would pass muster in any national research uninversity in America.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704779704574553652849094482.html
14. fergbutt - November 25, 2009 at 11:52 am
The NYT did publish an article about the controversy but will not publish the e-mails because they're not public documents. Gee, I don't remember that courtesy for Sarah Palin's e-mails, or the Pentagon Papers. The NYT chooses its principles to fit its biases. It wouldn't matter if it was just any newspaper, but many mainstream news sources take their cues from the NYT, such that, if the NYT doesn't make a big deal about something, neither will they.
The Chronicle has lightly covered the story, too, but seems to be following the NYT. If a favorite cause of the Bush administration had been shown to meddle with peer-reviewed journals, I suspect the stories would be big and relentless. But, if it's a left-wing initiative, getting an opinion from Nature magazine passes for journalism. Why is the Chronicle not printing the e-mails?
15. _perplexed_ - November 25, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Thanks for the wsj link (don't know how/why my google search missed it). The most disturbing element in these emails is the way the concern that data may need to be released for public scrutiny is expressed. I would understand unhappiness about the amount of work involved in complying with a freedom of information demand for data, but that is not the tenor of the emails. Arguments about how to best analyze data and what should appear in print are not that unusual and seem, at least to me, less problematic.
16. 11232247 - November 25, 2009 at 04:48 pm
The CRU scandal is important because it strikes at the heart of what is and is not legitimate science and research. These people stand accused of not only intentionally manipulating their climate data so that it supported their original hypotheses. They also appear to have conspired amongst themselves to thwart the acceptance of papers submitted to refereed journals that may have offered contrary or critical evidence to their own pseudo research.
Make no mistake. These are very serious charges and they will affect anyone now working in the field of scientific research. Regardless of a person's opinion on climate change, we owe it to our community to carefully investigate these CRU allegations.
17. ctwardy - November 26, 2009 at 12:01 am
@11232247:
Thanks for the link. I've read the key emails and several discussions. The apparent evidence of data manipulation is weak and has convincing explanations as legitimate work. See gavin's recent posts and replies to many inquirers about this at http://www.realclimate.org/. Same with the bit about peer review -- nothing surprising to anyone who has submitted or reviewed, and nothing wrong with researchers deciding to avoid journals publishing what they regard to be shoddy work. (And see gavin's comments on that -- it's apparently a well-known episode.)
But I'm with _perplexed_: the biggest concern is the tone and content of the emails regarding FOIA requests. To be sure, a lot of their data and code *is* available, but I do want someone to explain what was going on there.
The best I've found is that some data may be supplied by the DOE under restriction because it has dual (military?) use, but this doesn't explain the tone.
18. fergbutt - November 26, 2009 at 07:30 pm
Evidence of data manipulation is not the issue. The issue is that journal editors tried to change the peer-review process to protect one point of view. You know, if the public loses faith in the peer review process, than ALL scholars will be out of a job. Our credibility seems paramount, but the green movement is so much like a religion to so many that I fear the zealots will drag us all down. And it appears that some of the responders here are content to NOT investigate the issues. Names are named in these letters. Where is the outrage?
Read the emails BEFORE you form an opinion: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php
19. dank48 - November 30, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Freeman Dyson has it right: the "green" movement has changed from an environmental movement to a political alliance to a secular religion, complete with dogma, heretics, a mythological dream of Eden, and original sin.
When it becomes "necessary" to suppress opposing viewpoints, to demonize critics rather than answering them, and to cook one's evidence until it comes out right, it ceases to be science. And frankly, I can't think of a religion worthy of respect that still behaves like this, if only because they can't get away with it.
20. hafajc - December 01, 2009 at 04:35 pm
Barney Frank? Barney Frank! Someone quoted Barney Frank as the heart, the basis of a scientific argument. Of course we know that the argument is not scientific at all, it is political. Only Warmistas can save the world from the evils of capitalism. Barney Frank. Guess that proves it. Gee, that's the harsh reality. Guess you and Barney are smarter than the rest of us. Everyone knows that Barney is the greatest scientist and climatologist--other than of course Nobel Laureate Al Gore, the possessor of two passing grades (though just barely)in lower-division, undergraduate science courses. He does have lots of stock in that carbon credit company he founded, though. Wait--isn't that capitalism?
Barney Frank?
21. swish - December 09, 2009 at 03:53 pm
John didn't quote Barney Frank as any kind of science expert. He quoted him as an expert on fanatics and the pointlessness of trying to reason with them.
Most of us, non-fanatics on both sides, were startled by this story. After looking at or hearing more evidence and opinions on both sides, we began to settle in to our own view of the matter (which still could change if further evidence is revealed).
The fanatics were not startled by the story; they were either gleeful or frightened at the validation or threat to their world view. One side pounced on it and adopted it as clear proof of their rightness; the other side seized upon ways to explain it away. That, I believe, is what John was quoting Barney Frank about.