Mosher: The Hackers

http://instructors.cwrl.utexas.edu/jbrown/files/hackers_cartoons.jpg

Image: University of Texas - click for related story

Guest Post by Steven Mosher

All processes are subject to hacking, both from external and internal entities. The IPCC process is no exception, neither is the process of writing for science journals exempt. As recent reports show Pachauri hacked the IPCC processes to make them work against themselves and bend the system to his financial ends. An inside hacker, like Pachauri, can be especially dangerous since he plays a role in structuring the very system that they hack. Not only do they exploit a system they were meant to protect, but they also act in ways to prevent detection of their hacks.

What the recent disclosures about Pachauri show is that the IPCC process is now totally compromised, compromised from the inside. Like a system exploited by a destructive hack, that system may be beyond repair. It’s time to reformat the hard drive and start from scratch, as climate scientist Hulme, spotted 101 times in the Climategate files and closely tied to Pachauri, suggested–perhaps in a moment of clarity after the discovery of the emails:

It is also possible that the institutional innovation that has been the I.P.C.C. has run its course. Yes, there will be an AR5 but for what purpose? The I.P.C.C. itself, through its structural tendency to politicize climate change science, has perhaps helped to foster a more authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production.”

Just how was the CRU system hacked? And can such hacks be prevented or are they a very part of the nature of authoritarian systems? As discussed in our book “Climategate: The Crutape Letters , now available on Kindle and in Ebook format,  the “hacks” were focused on the publication process.

The IPCC reports were intended to be summaries of the science, both what we know and what we don’t know. These summaries were written for policy makers who would use the science and its findings to take action: action to prevent climate change, mitigate it, adapt to it, and to fund new studies where knowledge was uncertain. And action is where the money is. Every hack of the system cashes out into some form of compensation to the hackers: more money for their organizations or more prestige for themselves.

As the mails show the hacking of the CRU process and the scientific process itself was exposed primarily because of the “pressure” put on the hackers by the FIOA process. And as the mails also show, the hackers moved to thwart the FOIA process by corrupting FOIA officers. In fact, the most egregious hack of the system, Jones’s request that people delete mails, came as the direct result of trying to cover up a hack of the process, the hack surrounding the ‘Jesus Paper.’

During the course of writing the account of Climategate, we noticed that Pachauri, was named directly in the files 11 times and he’s mentioned by title in others. Before canvassing those mails it’s key to understand how the hackers worked to subvert the IPCC process and the scientific publishing process. And finally, it’s important to understand that they are planning counter measures that will allow them to continue hacking the system with the upcoming fifth assessment report due in 2013. As Jones indicates in late 2009 ,Pachauri and Thomas [Stocker] an IPCC Co Chair took up the issue of FOIA with the full IPCC. One can’t imagine that they argued for full disclosure or full compliance with disclosure laws.  As detailed in this mail Jones’ alerts Stocker, who works at Bern in Switzerland, to measures Holland suggests for the next IPCC report. Jones alerts Stocker to specific comments on Climate Audit, arming him for the next battle.

Tricks of the Trade.

The high level hacks of the IPCC system include the following: changing chronologies, altering the appearance of graphics to tell a different story making up science out of whole cloth , and citing non peered reviewed literature when they could not keep contrarian papers out of the IPCC documents.

The IPCC reports are supposed to be  objective summaries of the state of the science and are supposed to reference only works that are published in the peer reviewed science that met specific time deadlines. The deadlines are critical to have a fair and open process, ensuring that papers referenced have, in fact, been published and reviewed by others. Jones, however, finds such procedures to ensure fairness an impediment to his determining what is important.

Hacking the deadlines to get the ‘Jesus paper’ into Chapter 6 of the 4th assessment report of the IPCC was easiest hack to uncover. As the hackers left a paper trail of their activities that exists outside of the climategate mails. The mails, merely confirm what Steve McIntyre had already figured out.  The mails of course add some background that strengthens the case, including the hacker’s knowledge that McIntyre was on to their game as well as Jones suggestion to cover up the hack by changing the “received date” on the paper.

By hacking the deadlines of the process, and shoe horning in a paper that would not be fully reviewed and published for over a year, a paper that contains references to another paper published after the fact, the hackers could ensure that lead author Briffa had the ammunition he needed to write the chapter the way Overpeck, his overlord, wanted it written: with a punch line more compelling than the ‘Hockey Stick’, that iconic figure of the global warming religion which “shows” that the current warming is “unprecedented in human history.” This hack is akin to check kiting or akin to planting older fossils with younger fossils as occurred in the Piltdown Man hoax.

To further the promotion of the ‘Hockey Stick’ message the Chapter 6 team also manipulated graphics, “hiding the decline,” even when one reviewer explicitly demanded that they show the graphic as it appeared in the original science. And finally, after keeping one skeptical paper out of the first two drafts of the report, as they had threatened to, the scientists finally resorted to making up facts on the fly.

Those are the user level hacks, but they go deeper. At the IPCC level the hacking is open to scrutiny, and as we see, the journalists following the references in the IPCC document are now finding these user level exploits. The deeper hacks, like a rootkit hack, involve the operating system of science, the science journals themselves. Manipulation of the science at the IPCC level is easy to document, but corrupting the journal process, the process that is supposed to feed the IPCC process with “trusted” information, is tougher to document.

Without the mails which detail how these hacks work, one could imagine that the IPCC could be made “hack proof” merely by adopting more controls and a more open process. The mails, however, indicate that the science publishing process has also been hacked. Editors have been compromised, and the system of peer review has been corrupted. Very simply, one can make the IPCC process as open and transparent as one likes, but as long as it is fed by a corrupt journal process, you will still get garbage science out of the IPCC process. And further, you could reform the journals all you like and the process can still be corrupted by the individual influential researcher who hides his data and his code.

Eleven Mails

The 11 mails mentioning Pachauri by name, only give hints at how the system was worked to his advantage. Reading them now in hindsight is instructive. The first from Rob Stewart to Pachauri in 1998, before Pachuari’s tenure begins, details the process of communicating about IPCC matters. As it notes, all communication should happen within the structures set up so that a traceable chain of evidence can be created. As the Climategate files show, this policy was violated, violated precisely so that the 4th assessment could be shaped in a way not reflective of the underlying science.

In the second mail Pachauri invites Hulme to a conference, initiating a relationship with Hulme that will culminate in Pachauri and Hulme working together to on UEA’s effort to win a government bid on the creation of a climate change center in England, as detailed in the third mail in the stack. That effort results in the founding of the Tyndall Centre, a center named no less than 11 times in the mails.

The interests of Hulme and Pachauri are clear. Use the science arm at CRU to drive conclusions in the IPCC that will drive funding into Tyndall and drive money into TERI, Pachauri’s organization, and CRU. The importance of funding should not be underestimated. Money works to corrupt science, not by changing the answer, but by changing the questions that get asked.

The fourth mail shows some of the TERI organization’s interests and one can see from the articles promoted in their newsletter that the agenda is clearly one of using the threat of climate change to drive a particular developing nation’s agenda.

The fifth Pachauri mail is interesting for a variety of reasons. The mail contains other mails, notably mails from Tom Wigley and Phil Jones who question the appointment of Pachauri, as they apparently believed that Pachauri was put in place by political forces, namely Bush, to serve corporate interests. This typical kneejerk reaction of the Union of  Concerned Scientists, who alerted Wigley to the issue, on reflection, is somewhat laughable now. Hulme, as the mail show, defends Pachauri, his  Indian partner,  in the bid to get the Tyndall center, on rather odd grounds. Simply: Wigley points out that the “bushies” are behind this and Hulme defends Pachauri by arguing that perhaps Watson ,a Brit and the previous IPCC secretariat, has gone too far; and Hulme wonders why an Indian and an engineer should not be considered. Hulme strangely turns a political attack on Pachauri into an attack on his back ground. The defense seems entirely misplaced, unless of course there has been some other communications where these concerns were raised.

So why does Hulme go “racial?” Whatever the reason it’s apparent that discussions about Pachauri’s appointment don’t continue. Hulme played the race card and issue ends there. Perhaps Hulme played the race card so he would not have to explain how having Pachauri “on board” would be beneficial.  Hulme’s partner is now in charge of the IPCC; and as Hulme writes, recalling the language of the conference Pachauri invited him to back in 1998, it will be a good thing to have someone in charge who understands that climate change is a North/South issue. It will also be good to have someone in charge who can funnel benefits your way.

The sixth Pachauri mail is from Tom Wigley in 2003. The topic of the mail is the strategy for responding to a single paper by Soon and Baliunas. It’s hard to fathom why a scientist would include the head of the IPCC as well as many other scientists on a mail that lays out the strategy for responding to lone contrarian paper. The Soon and Balinunas paper, did have the notoriety of being a skeptical paper accepted by the peer review science, but it was hardly a crushing blow to “the science.” Still, Wigley lays out for Pachauri, what the goal is. Rebut the paper to make the job of writing the next IPCC report, due years down the road, easier. So, the practices of just letting bad science die, or of letting individual scientists rebut the bad paper as they see fit are brushed aside.  Wigley believes that there must be some sort of orchestrated effort to provide the future writers of the IPCC reports with specifically targeted ammunition. Science gets turned to producing papers to make the job of the science summarizers easier.

In the seventh mail in the stack Michael Mann appears to weigh in with his opinion. Included in the mail, is Stephan Schneider. Schneider, whose name appears at least 71 times in the mails, will later prove instrumental in getting the Jesus Paper into Chapter 6 of the 4th Assessment. He is a Trojan horse inside the journal system. But for Schneider, who “knows the drill” , the  Jesus paper would never make it into the report.  What Schneider and Pachauri see, of course, is that Mann is making the contrarian paper a political issue and David Halpern of the OSFT has been contacted. In the eighth mail, Jim Salinger will add his voice to the choir of those suggesting that the “bad” science be refuted rather than merely ignored. Again, one has to ask what is the head of the IPCC doing on these mails? Why do Mann and Salinger think that he will be remotely interested in the fate of a single paper?

In the ninth Parchuari mail, we see Hulme and Pachauri starting to take advantage of their connection through the Tyndall Centre, and Hulme suggests a joint publishing project. So we have Hulme, who brushed off Wigley and Jones’s political concerns about his partner Pachauri, actively engaging with the head of the IPCC to work on projects that both of their organizations will benefit from.

The 10th mail is interesting for one reason. It provides some rich irony and it shows what men of character do when a publishing process is subverted. The file contains an email from Mann and from Salinger, and both reference the turmoil cause by the Soon paper. Notably Hans Von Storch is reckoned a hero for resigning his editorship at Climate Research over the incident. The journal that he worked for had published the suspect paper, and his response and the response of other editors was resignation. Simply put, those who worked on the IPCC reports took the same stance as Von Storch, they would take their names off the IPCC report.  Just as Climate Research erred in publishing the flawed Soon paper, the IPCC process has also published bogus science, even invented science where there was none.

In 2003 that one simple error was enough to get men of character to resign. Authors of the IPCC report would do well to follow their example. The incident bears some striking similarities to what we see today. The Wall Street Journal editorial by Antonio Regalado, is included in the mail from Mann.

“This week, three editors of Climate Research resigned in protest over

the journal’s handling of the review process that approved the study;

among them is Hans von Storch, the journal’s recently appointed

editor in chief. “It was flawed and it shouldn’t have been

published,” he said

And most importantly, the flawed science found its way into an EPA document much as flawed science has made its way into the IPCC report:

“A reference to Dr. Soon’s paper previously found its way into

revisions suggested by the White House to an EPA report on

environmental quality. According to an internal EPA memorandum

disclosed in June, agency scientists were concerned the version

containing the White House edits “no longer accurately represents

scientific consensus on climate change.” Dr. Mann’s data showing the

hockey-stick temperature curve was deleted. In its place,

administration officials added a reference to Dr. Soon’s paper, which

the EPA memo called “a limited analysis that supports the

administration’s favored message.”

In 2003 the journal Climate Research let through a bad piece of science that challenged the “hockey stick.” That bad science made its way into an EPA document because it favored the administrations view.  Clearly this was wrong. And Von Storch took the right action. And now, with the evidence that bad science has made its way into the IPCC report, its time for the responsible parties to follow the fine example of Von Storch.

The 11th mail which mentions Pachauri is important for understanding the events leading up to Phil Jones’ refusal to give data to Warwick Hughes, but its relation to Pachauri is tangential, except for the hint it contains about the kind of rhetoric Pachauri would use to further his cause, an early clue into his character. Buried in a series of editorials about Michael Mann forward by Briffa to Jones, we find the following 2005 gem from Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute:

“Not long ago the IPCC’s chairman, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, compared

eco-skeptic Bjorn Lomborg to Hitler. “What is the difference between Lomborg’s view of humanity and Hitler’s?” Pachauri asked in a Danish newspaper. “If you were to accept Lomborg’s way of thinking, then maybe what Hitler did was the right thing”  Lomborg’s sin was merely to follow the consensus practice of economists in applying a discount to present costs for future benefits, and comparing the range of outcomes with other world problems alongside climate change. It is hard to judge what is worse: Pachauri’s appalling judgment in resorting to reductio ad Hitlerum, or his abysmal ignorance of basic economics. In either case, it is hard to have much confidence in the policy advice the IPCC might have.”

Looking at the Pachauri mails in the Climategate files doesn’t provide any new examples of wrongdoing. We don’t need any. What it does do is give a sense of how the men who hacked the climate science operated. How they reasoned, how they strategized and what they viewed as threats and opportunities. If we want to improve the science in climate science and build a trusted system, we need to understand the “black hats.”

Building a trusted system for climate science

With the IPCC’s reputation in tatters, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion of Pachauri’s man at CRU, Hulme. Perhaps the IPCC has run its course. If trust is to be rebuilt in climate science it must start from the bottom up, with the fundamental data and code of climate science. The IPCC process will always be hackable, and so to will the climate science journals. Cleaning up the mess must start at the foundation of science with open access to the data and the code used in climate science.

The notion that science can move forward while individual climate scientists hide data from their critics is antithetical to the dictates of reason. CRU and others have no more excuses. All and any data used in climate science should be published under a Creative Commons like license, free for anyone to view and use. Confidential data should not be used; it is not necessary to the science. Phil Jones should be removed as an advisor to NOAA on data archiving and access. That’s having a black hat hacker in charge of the hardware. The code of climate science should likewise be freely available. In particular, we should press climate science to adopt a GPL license, one that enforces sharing of code. In part GPL is required because on more than one occasion some climate scientists have used the public code of others without re-sharing it. For example, they have used public code, modified it in undocumented ways, and refused to share the derivative work.

At the level of the journals trust can only be rebuilt by changes in people and principles. The list of people who need to go is easy to draw up. More importantly the Journals need to adopt principles of reproducible research. If a reviewer or official “replication” expert cannot recompile the science from source, both data and code, the science needs to be rejected.

Above the journal level at the IPCC level of course Pachauri needs to go. But the risk of him being replaced with a less crude hacker is high. The issue is that trust cannot be blindly placed in people. The entire IPCC process must be opened. We want to watch that process first hand and be eyewitness to every word.

The Hackers

All processes are subject to hacking, both from external and internal entities. The IPCC process is no exception, neither is the process of writing for science journals exempt. As recent reports show Pachauri hacked the IPCC processes to make them work against themselves and bend the system to his financial ends. An inside hacker, like Pachauri, can be especially dangerous since they play a role in structuring the very system that they hack. Not only do they exploit a system they were meant to protect, but they also act in ways to prevent detection of their hacks.

What the recent disclosures about Pachauri show is that the IPCC process is now totally compromised, compromised from the inside. Like a system exploited by a destructive hack, that system may be beyond repair. It’s time to reformat the hard drive and start from scratch, as climate scientist Hulme, spotted 101 times in the Climategate files and closely tied to Pachauri, suggested–perhaps in a moment of clarity after the discovery of the emails:

It is also possible that the institutional innovation that has been the I.P.C.C. has run its course. Yes, there will be an AR5 but for what purpose? The I.P.C.C. itself, through its structural tendency to politicize climate change science, has perhaps helped to foster a more authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production.”

Just how was the IPCC system hacked? And can such hacks be prevented or are they a very part of the nature of authoritarian systems? As discussed in our book “Climategate: The Crutape Letters , now available on Kindle and in Ebook format,  the “hacks” were focused on the publication process.

The IPCC reports where intended to be summaries of the science, both what we know and what we don’t know. These summaries were written for policy makers who would use the science and its findings to take action: action to prevent climate change, mitigate it, adapt to it, and to fund new studies where knowledge was uncertain. And action is where the money is. Every hack of the system cashes out into some form of compensation to the hackers: more money for their organizations or more prestige for themselves.

As the mails show the hacking of the IPCC process and the scientific process itself was exposed primarily because of the “pressure” put on the hackers by the FIOA process. And as the mails also show, the hackers moved to thwart the FOIA process by corrupting FOIA officers. In fact, the most egregious hack of the system, Jones’ request that people delete mails, came as the direct result of trying to cover up a hack of the IPCC process, the hack surrounding the ‘Jesus Paper.’

During the course of writing the account of Climategate, we noticed that Pachauri, was named directly in the files 11 times and he’s mentioned by title in others. Before canvassing those mails it’s key to understand how the hackers worked to subvert the IPCC process and the scientific publishing process. And finally, it’s important to understand that they are planning counter measures that will allow them to continue hacking the system with the upcoming fifth assessment report due in 2013. As Jones indicates in late 2009 ,Pachauri and Thomas [Stocker] an IPCC Co Chair took up the issue of FOIA with the full IPCC. One can’t imagine that they argued for full disclosure or full compliance with disclosure laws.  As detailed in this mail Jones’ alerts Stocker, who works at Bern in Switzerland, to measures Holland suggests for the next IPCC report. Jones alerts Stocker to specific comments on Climate Audit, arming him for the next battle.

Tricks of the Trade.

The high level hacks of the IPCC system include the following: changing chronologies, altering the appearance of graphics to tell a different story making up science out of whole cloth , and citing non peered reviewed literature when they could not keep contrarian papers out of the IPCC documents.

The IPPC reports are supposed to be an objective summary of the state of the science and are supposed to reference only works that are published in the peer reviewed science that met specific time deadlines. The deadlines are critical to have a fair and open process, ensuring that papers referenced have, in fact, been published and reviewed by others. Jones, however, finds such procedures to ensure fairness an impediment to him determining what is important.

Hacking the deadlines to get the ‘Jesus paper’ into Chapter 6 of the 4th assessment report of the IPCC was easiest hack to uncover. As the hackers left a paper trial of their activities that exists outside of the climategate mails. The mails, merely confirm what Steve McIntyre had already figured out.  The mails of course add some background that strengthens the case, including the hacker’s knowledge that McIntyre was on to their game as well as Jones suggestion to cover up the hack by changing the “received date” on the paper.

By hacking the deadlines of the process, and shoe horning in a paper that would not be fully reviewed and published for over a year, a paper that contains references to another paper published after the fact, the hackers could ensure that lead author Briffa had the ammunition he needed to write the chapter the way Overpeck, his overlord, wanted it written: with a punch line more compelling than the ‘Hockey Stick’, that iconic figure of the global warming religion which “shows” that the current warming is “unprecedented in human history.” This hack is akin to check kiting or akin to planting older fossils with younger fossils as occurred in the Piltdown Man hoax.

To further the promotion of the ‘Hockey Stick’ message the Chapter 6 team also manipulated graphics, “hiding the decline,” even when one reviewer explicitly demanded that they show the graphic as it appeared in the original science. And finally, after keeping one skeptical paper out of the first two drafts of the report, as they had threatened to, the scientists finally resorted to making up facts on the fly.

Those are the user level hacks, but the hacks go deeper. At the IPPC level, the hacks are open to scrutiny and as we see journalists now following the references in the IPCC document they are finding these user level exploits. The deeper hacks, like a rootkit hack, involve the operating system of science, the science journals themselves. Manipulation of the science at the IPCC level is easy to document, but corrupting the journal process, the process that is supposed to feed the IPCC process with “trusted” information, is tougher to document.

Without the mails which detail how these hacks work, one could imagine that the IPCC could be made “hack proof” merely by adopting more controls and a more open process. The mails, however, indicate that the science publishing process has also been hacked. Editors have been compromised, and the system of peer review has been corrupted. Very simply, one can make the IPCC process as open and transparent as one likes, but as long as it is fed by a corrupt journal process, you will still get garbage science out of the IPCC process. And further, you could reform the journals all you like and the process can still be corrupted by the individual influential researcher who hides his data and his code.

Eleven Mails

The 11 mails mentioning Pachauri by name, only give hints at how the system was worked to his advantage. Reading them now in hindsight is instructive. The first from Rob Stewart to Pachauri in 1998, before Pachuari’s tenure begins, details the process of communicating about IPCC matters. As it notes, all communication should happen within the structures set up so that a traceable chain of evidence can be created. As the Climategate files show, this policy was violated, violated precisely so that the 4th assessment could be shaped in a way not reflected in the underlying science.

In the second mail Pachauri invites Hulme to a conference, initiating a relationship with Hulme that will culminate in Pachauri and Hulme working together to on UEA’s effort to win a government bid on the creation of a climate change center in England, as detailed in the third mail in the stack. That effort results in the founding of the Tyndall Center, a center named no less than 11 times in the mails.

The interests of Hulme and Pachauri are clear. Use the science arm at CRU to drive conclusions in the IPCC that will drive funding into Tyndall and drive money into TERI, Pachauri’s organization, and CRU. The important of funding should not be underestimated. Money works to corrupt science, not by changing the answer, but by changing the questions that get asked.

The fourth mail shows some of the TERI organization’s interests and one can see from the articles promoted in their newsletter that the agenda is clearly one of using the threat of climate change to drive a particular developing nation agenda.

The fifth Pachauri mail is interesting for a variety of reasons. The mail contains other mails, notably mails from Tom Wigley and Phil Jones who question the appointment of Pachauri, as they apparently believed that Pachauri was put in place by political forces, namely Bush, to serve corporate interests. This typical kneejerk reaction of the Union of  Concerned Scientists, who alerted Wigley to the issue, on reflection, is somewhat laughable now. Hulme, as the mail show, defends Pachauri, his  Indian partner,  in the bid to get the Tyndall center, on rather odd grounds. Simply: Wigley points out that the “bushies” are behind this and Hulme defends Pachauri by arguing that perhaps Watson ,a Brit and the previous IPCC secretariat, has gone too far; and Hulme wonders why an Indian and an engineer should not be considered. Hulme strangely turns a political attack on Pachauri into an attack on his back ground. The defense seems entirely misplaced, unless of course there has been some other communications where these concerns were raised.

So why does Hulme go “racial?” Whatever the reason its apparent that discussions about Pachauri’s appointment don’t continue. Hulme played the race card and issue ends there. Perhaps Hulme played the race card so he would not have to explain how having Pachauri “on board” would be beneficial.  Hulme’s partner is now in charge of the IPCC; and as Hulme writes, recalling the language of the conference Pachauri invited him to back in 1998, it will be a good thing to have someone in charge who understands that climate change is a North/South issue. It will also be good to have some one in charge who can funnel benefits your way.

The sixth Pachauri mail is from Tom Wigley in 2003. The topic of the mail is the strategy for responding to a single paper by Soon and Baliunas. It’s hard to fathom why a scientist would include the head of the IPCC as well as many other scientists on a mail that lays out the strategy for responding to lone contrarian paper. The Soon and Balinunas paper, did have the notoriety of being a skeptical paper accepted by the peer review science, but it was hardly a crushing blow to “the science.” Still, Wigley lays out for Pachauri, what the goal is. Rebut the paper to make the job of writing the next IPCC report, due years down the road, easier. So, the practices of just letting bad science die, or of letting individual scientists rebut the bad paper as they see fit are brushed aside.  Wigley believes that there must be some sort of orchestrated effort to provide the future writers of the IPCC reports with specifically targeted ammunition. Science gets turned to producing papers to make the job of the science summarizers easier.

In the seventh mail in the stack Michael Mann appears to weigh in with his opinion. Included in the mail, is Stephan Schneider. Schneider, whose name appears at least 71 times in the mails, will later prove instrumental in getting the Jesus Paper into Chapter 6 of the 4th Assessment. He is a Trojan horse inside the journal system. But for Schneider, who “knows the drill” , the  Jesus paper would never make it into the report.  What Schneider and Pachauri see, of course, is that Mann is making the contrarian paper a political issue and David Halpern of the OSFT has been contacted. In the eighth mail, Jim Salinger will add his voice to the choir of those suggesting that the “bad” science be refuted rather than merely ignored. Again, one has to ask what is the head of the IPCC doing on these mails? Why does Mann and Salinger think that he will be remotely interested in the fate of a single paper?

In the ninth Parchuari mail, we see Hulme and Pachauri starting to take advantage of their connection through the Tyndall Center, and Hulme suggests a joint publishing project. So we have Hulme, who brushed off Wigley’s and Jones’ political concerns about his partner Pachauri, actively engaging with the head of the IPCC to work on projects that both of their organizations will benefit from.

The 10th mail is interesting for one reason. It provides some rich irony and it shows what men of character do when a publishing process is subverted. The file contains a mail from Mann and from Salinger, and both reference the turmoil cause by the Soon paper. Notably Hans Von Storch is reckoned a hero for resigning his editorship at Climate Research over the incident. The journal that he worked for had published the suspect paper, and his response and the response of other editors was resignation. Simply put, those who worked on the IPCC reports took the same stance as Von Storch, they would take their names off the IPCC report.  Just as Climate Research erred in publishing the flawed Soon paper, the IPCC process has also published bogus science, even invented science where there was none.

In 2003 that one simple error was enough to get a men of character to resign. Author’s of the IPCC report would do well to follow their example. The incident bears some striking similarities to what we see today. The Wall Street Journal editorial by Antonio Regalado, is included in the mail from Mann.

“This week, three editors of Climate Research resigned in protest over

the journal’s handling of the review process that approved the study;

among them is Hans von Storch, the journal’s recently appointed

editor in chief. “It was flawed and it shouldn’t have been

published,” he said

And most importantly, the flawed science found its way into an EPA document much as flawed science has made its way into the IPCC report:

“A reference to Dr. Soon’s paper previously found its way into

revisions suggested by the White House to an EPA report on

environmental quality. According to an internal EPA memorandum

disclosed in June, agency scientists were concerned the version

containing the White House edits “no longer accurately represents

scientific consensus on climate change.” Dr. Mann’s data showing the

hockey-stick temperature curve was deleted. In its place,

administration officials added a reference to Dr. Soon’s paper, which

the EPA memo called “a limited analysis that supports the

administration’s favored message.”

In 2003 the journal Climate Research let through a bad piece of science that challenged the “hockey stick.” That bad science made it’s way into an EPA document because it favored the administrations view.  Clearly this was wrong. And Von Storch took the right action. And now, with the evidence that bad science has made its way into the IPCC report, its time for the responsible parties to follow the fine example of Von Storch.

The 11th mail which mentions Pachauri is important for understanding the events leading up to Phil Jones’ refusal to give data to Warwick Hughes, but it’s relation to Pachauri is tangential, except for the hint it contains about the kind of rhetoric Pachauri would use to further his cause, an early clue into his character. Buried in a series of editorials about Michael Mann forward by Briffa to Jones, we find the following 2005 gem from Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute:

“Not long ago the IPCC’s chairman, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, compared

eco-skeptic Bjorn Lomborg to Hitler. “What is the difference between Lomborg’s view of humanity and Hitler’s?” Pachauri asked in a Danish newspaper. “If you were to accept Lomborg’s way of thinking, then maybe what Hitler did was the right thing”  Lomborg’s sin was merely to follow the consensus practice of economists in applying a discount to present costs for future benefits, and comparing the range of outcomes with other world problems alongside climate change. It is hard to judge what is worse: Pachauri’s appalling judgment in resorting to reductio ad Hitlerum, or his abysmal ignorance of basic economics. In either case, it is hard to have much confidence in the policy advice the IPCC might have.”

Looking at the Pachauri mails in the Climategate files doesn’t provide any new examples of wrong doing. We don’t need any. What it does do is give a sense of how the men who hacked the climate science operated. How they reasoned, how they strategized and what they viewed as threats and opportunities. If we want to improve the science in climate science and build a trusted system, we need to understand the “black hats.”

Building a trusted system for climate science

With the IPCC’s reputation in tatters, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion of Pachauri’s man at CRU, Hulme. Perhaps the IPCC has run its course. If trust is to be rebuilt in climate science it must start from the bottom up, with the fundamental data and code of climate science. The IPCC process will always be hackable, and so to will the climate science journals. Cleaning up the mess must start at the foundation of science with open access to the data and the code used in climate science.

The notion that science can move forward while individual climate scientists hide data from their critics is antithetical to the dictates of reason. CRU and others have no more excuses. All and any data used in climate science should be published under a Creative Commons like license, free for anyone to view and use. Confidential data should not be used; it is not necessary to the science. Phil Jones should be removed as an advisor to NOAA on data archiving and access. That’s having a black hat hacker in charge of the hardware. The code of climate science should likewise be freely available. In particular, we should press climate science to adopt a GPL license, one that enforces sharing of code. In part GPL is required because on more than one occasion some climate scientists have used the public code of others without resharing it. For example, they have used public code, modified it in undocumented ways, and refused to share the derivative work.

At the level of the journals trust can only be rebuilt by changes in people and principles. The list of people who need to go is easy to draw up. More importantly the Journals need to adopt principles of reproducible research. If a reviewer or official “replication” expert cannot recompile the science from source, both data and code, the science needs to be rejected.

Above the journal level at the IPCC level of course Pachauri needs to go. But the risk of him being replaced with a less crude hacker is high. The issue is that trust cannot be blindly placed in people. The entire IPCC process must be opened. We want to watch that process first hand and be eyewitness to every word.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Daniel H

“It is also possible that the institutional innovation that has been the I.P.C.C. has run its course.”
Perhaps the biggest shocker of all is that the terms “I.P.C.C.” and “innovation” occur in the same sentence.

Herman L

The IPPC reports … are supposed to reference only works that are published in the peer reviewed science
Non-peer reviewed publications are permissible reference in the IPCC reports under certain circumstances. See this link: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles-appendix-a.pdf
Specifically, read Annex 2 “PROCEDURE FOR USING NON-PUBLISHED/NON-PEER-REVIEWED SOURCES IN IPCC REPORTS”

DirkH

“Not long ago the IPCC’s chairman, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, compared
eco-skeptic Bjorn Lomborg to Hitler. ”
Lomborgs “The sceptical environmentalist” has been scrutinized by every green lunatic of the planet, they never found a substantial mistake with the data. It’s of far higher qualtiy than the IPCC rubbish. Pachauri must be out of his mind for quite a long time now. I’m really appaled. I knew Pachauri is greedy, but i didn’t know how bad a character he is. I’m german, i know the history of Germany and i don’t take such utterances lightly.

steven mosher

Arrg IPPC gets used a couple times.
REPLY: fixed, please advise if I missed any -A

JustPassing

One wonders if we are all indeed just living in a global Matrix. Going about our daily lives when all along behinds the scenes its just a complex web of lies.

AnonyMoose

Daniel H – Many financial institution innovations do not turn out well.
Spelling nit:
“The IPCC reports where intended to be”
Probably “were intended”.

DirkH

For all who want the exact Pachauri – Lomborg – Hitler quote, here’s a hit:
http://cei.org/GENCON/019,04013.CFM
It is not a casual remark like calling someone a grammar nazi. He really explains the logic behind his comparison. Way beyond sick.

DirkH

Well i’m stupid. The text is in the post itself ;-)… Well take my link as proof for a second source. Not to mistrust Mr. Mosher, but double-checking is always better.

Henry chance

Internal control is missing here. Pachuri and too many others have access and motive to corrupt both the files and the reports. For better internal control authorities and duties need to be segregated. Pachuri is corrupt. The EPA is operating off corrupted reports and processes. Pachauri is now woven into money and fees. Someone will have to clean house.

ZT

OT:
Daniel H – please write more – your story about the activist lady was very amusing.

JonesII

CAUTION: Not to be distracted by the fact that UN’s IPCC has played just an instrumental role in the global warming scam, the master minds are safely outside. This process is intended to blame just the servants not the masters.

Paddy Barrett

Please hire a proofreader! The typos and grammatical errors detract from the substance of the article.
REPLY: Fixed, if you see others don’t hesitate to bring them up -A

theduke

But, but Mosh, if we get rid of the IPCC we won’t have them to kick around anymore.
Good essay. Hulme, in a moment of temporary lucidness, had it right.
I wonder if he’s the whistleblower.

George Tobin

When was the IPCC anything other than an adjunct to a political end? Calling for reform and scientific purity in the IPCC is like a demand for a brothel to focus more on character-building.
The perceived need to serve a political agenda and the natural desire to grab a share of the funding attached to that process has made it impossible for climate science to remain an honest broker. The reform is going to have to be deeper than some roster changes and dumping Pachauri.

Duke C.

Wow. Great piece of investigative reporting. Your stock just went up, Mosher.

DCC

“please advise if I missed any -A”
Two remain:
“The IPPC reports are supposed to be an objective summary of the state of the science…”
“At the IPPC level, the hacks are open to scrutiny …”

latitude

“The IPPC reports are supposed to be an objective summary of the state of the science”
NO
Why do people keep reading it and not getting it.
Cut out the fluff between the meat and just read it.
“The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers with an objective source of information about HUMAN-INDUCED climate change.”
“The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with
an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does
it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis
the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant
to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change”

Daniel H

“The Jesus Paper”… I love it! Now I’m all over the Bishop Hill blog reading more about this mysterious paper. So far, the story is very similar to the Da Vinci Code except instead of there being a murder-mystery we have a hockey-stick mystery and instead of the nefarious Sir Leigh Teabing we have the equally unpleasant Sir John Houghton. It’s all very dark and creepy.
I’ll report back later with the Cliff’s notes version.

All and any data used in climate science should be published under a Creative Commons like license, free for anyone to view and use.
This should be the case not only for data but also for the published papers. Often it takes the papers to make sense of the data or to see how the data is used. Therefore the papers should also be accessible to everyone without a ‘pay-wall’. Finally, the reviews [or at least, the reviewers’ identity] should be part of the electronic version of the paper. One could argue that some fields and/or obscure journals might be exempt [for various reasons, e.g. economic], but Journals with high impact factor should be open.

David W

I just posted this on RC. I wonder how long before it gets deleted.
“The problem lies with the hypocrisy of the IPCC’s position which will do the most damage. They have always pushed the position that the disastrous scenarios they present are backed by peer reviewed science.
It is very clear from this and other recent examples that this is not always the case. Now errors can happen I will grant but this very clearly makes it appear that those errors were identified at an early stage by other scientists and ignored in favour of presenting a more polictically powerful position. This is hypocrisy.
I think Pachauri’s response when the Indian report came out questioning the 2035 date and the level of melting glaciers in the himalayas he dismissed it as “voodoo science. Thats hypocrisy of the highest level.”
Its amazing that RC’s response to the current IPCC goings on misses the point entirely. Its not that the IPCC misses a mistake, its that when pre-warned about flaws in what they are planning publish they ignore the science in favour of sensationalisation to present a more alarming message.

APE

In the 3rd Paragragh under Eleven Mails “The important of funding…” Should be “The importance of funding…”
APE

Using trial in place of the obviously meant trail was a huge stopper for me.

Anand Rajan KD

Mike Hulme is a pretty sharp guy even though he’s mixed up with the AGW gang.

Peter of Sydney

A new meaning to IPCC: Internally Purposeful Corruption of Content

Peter of Sydney

It’s now time for all scientists to take a stance. Either they continue to back the IPCC and stand behind all its findings, or they state in no uncertain terms the IPCC is at least scientifically corrupt and it must be discredited outright and disbanded. Those that remain silent will be assumed to be in the former camp, and they must know this and take whatever consequences that will arise as the Climatgate continues to grow.

billthewriter

Great analysis and presentation. After just reading the climategate-CRUtape letters book and this article, am convinced of Mosher’s superior writing talent, and that this is the way to get the facts of the stories to a wider audience – not just to put the evidence coldly in the face of the public and press to be ignored, but to present the wider context in an easy to understand manner – not an easy feat!
Glad that he is on “our” side of the science – along with Steve, Watts, Lucia, Willis, and all of the others. Good show.

For a long time the IPCC has been demonstrating that it is less interested in scientific truth and more interested in advocacy. Like when Chris Landsea resigned because his boss was giving the media the IPCC story on more hurricanes etc from global warming – and yet the research hadn’t started. Like with using the Mann hockey stick for IPCC 2001 when at the time the consensus was for a medieval warming period.
Unfortunately this reflects badly on climate science when most of the scientists do excellent work. And reflects especially badly on the IPCC reports even though 90% of the IPCC technical reports are excellent.
For those who like to see an overly powerful organization get its comeuppance these are great days.
But for those who want to understand the climate and what the future holds it’s a challenge.
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/01/26/the-ipcc-and-the-credibility-of-climate-science-2/

Dave Andrews

Seven Mosher,
Great work and I have ordered a copy of your book – due to arrive here in UK in the next two weeks.
I think you might be being a bit too hard on Mike Hulme, however. I have heard him on radio , especially the Today programme ( flagship BBC news pgme), several times and he comes across as measured and reasonable.
It may well be that he took the opportunity to gain funding for the TRC. Perhaps he is now less sanguine about that and in some sense wishes to make amends.

David W

OT
Does anyone have details of where Lord Moncktons presentation is going to be held in Brisbane on 28th?

Steve, this is an enormously helpful narrative, a seedbed as some of us try to get our heads around what we should submit to the UK’s House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Inquiry into CRU and Climategate. Very neat appropriation of ‘hack’, totally justified. An inside job indeed. But the hackers’ own source code has been revealed. What a fantastic struggle that’s made us all part of.

David W

NVM about my previous post. Found what I was after.

John from MN

Objectively speaking a lot of house cleaning is needed at IPCC. If they want any sembelance of believability they need all new blood at the top and ones with level heads that recognise transparency and truth need to replace hype and bull. Seems like these people think they are creating a Hollywood movie and if they don’t knock your socks off with hyperbole they aren’t doing their job. The more I think about it though that is essense of the whole AGW movement from all corners of the blogosphere to NASA, CRU, IPCC and even the Met Office in the UK. It is all about who can “Wow” the strongest and the loudest with ever growing “fish stories”. Real science now is not good enough it has been scraped in favor of a flurry of ever stonger dire adjitives. This tact has back-fired Miserably. Why?…….The public reads this as reasons to question the validity of everything they say. Peoples BS meters have now pegged out. Sincerely, John

Charles. U. Farley

Is there any way to ascertain whether of not the minimum review times were adhered to when reviewing the various works that make up the ipcc reports?
Just another angle maybe…

kwik

Dave Andrews (14:11:10) :
Dave, it might be that Hulme is a nice guy, I dont know him.
But look at 6:44 minutes out in this video here….quite disturbing, dont you think? I havent read the book, but I dont think Lindzen would have included it in his presentation without reason….

Pachauri is still defending AGW as if his job depended on it!

Please hire a proofreader! The typos and grammatical errors detract from the substance of the article.
REPLY: Fixed, if you see others don’t hesitate to bring them up -A

Since you asked:
“An inside hacker, like Pachauri, can be especially dangerous since they play”
Either ‘Inside hackers’ or ‘he plays’ not ‘they play’;
“The IPCC reports where intended” should be ‘were’;
“Jones’ request” should be Jones’s (occurs elsewhere too)
“As detailed in this mail Jones’ ” no apostrophe
“impediment to him determining” should be ‘his’
“As the hackers left a paper trial” should be ‘trail’
” you will still get garbage science out of the IPCC process” ambiguous should probably replace ‘out of’ by ‘from’
“assessment could be shaped in a way not reflected in the underlying science.” probably should be ‘not reflective of’
“Tyndall Center” should be ‘Centre’
“drive a particular developing nation agenda.” either ‘national’ or ‘nation’s’ depending on which is meant.
“Whatever the reason its apparent” should be it’s
“some one in charge” should be ‘someone’
“Why does Mann and Salinger think ” should be ‘do’
“Wigley’s and Jones’” should be “Wigley and Jones’s”
“contains a mail from Mann and from Salinger” delete ‘a’
“to get a men of character to resign” delete ‘a’
“Author’s of the IPCC” no apostrophe
“bad science made it’s way ” no apostrophe
“wrong doing” one word
That’s a first pass I’m sure I’ve missed some.
REPLY: Thank you sincerely, Anthony

Paul

The IPCC is but one of the first ripples. This is a big pond and there are lots more ripples that have not yet been noticed or commented on. Even local councils have “Climate Change” policies on their books her in NZ. To turn back this tide is going to take an awful lot of doing and a great many people are going to have to eat humble pie and admit they are very gulible. The money involved is not even worth trying to add up. This is the biggest con in the history of the human race and I am not sure we are capable of undoing it.

ShrNfr

Always tell the truth. That way you don’t have to remember what you said. – Harry Truman

DirkH

“John from MN (14:27:34) :
[…]
Seems like these people think they are creating a Hollywood movie and if they don’t knock your socks off with hyperbole they aren’t doing their job.”
Very good analogy. “Suspension of disbelief” doesn’t work anymore. The special effects weren’t convincing enough (no warming), and the actors were too wooden (Gore). Pachauri misread the script; he was assigned the role of the ethnic-minority-sidekick of the western hero (Nobel price ceremony) but he suddenly plays the evil supervillain (comparing danish vegan professors of statistics to… and grabbing all the cash he can). The audience has lost the plot and leaves the theater in droves.

John Whitman

Steve,
Your timing for this great article being posted on Anthony’s site is flawless. With so many negative aspects to the IPCC AR4 report hitting us so fast, your article integrates it all into a focused discussion of the scientific process.
Thank you.
OT. Regarding the fundamental motivation of CAGW leaders & followers, I do not think it is money. Money is just the efficient motivation (to steal a paraphrase from Aristotle’s caustion theory). The causitive motivation at root is some kind of hatred of . . . . something.
John

I was more thinking AGW was akin to a form of pyramid sales (like Amway), where Sales where replaced with Grants, and recruiting sales people replaced with Referencing and Peer-Review.

Graeme From Melbourne

“Who guards the Guardians?”
The people must guard the Guardians.

Richard Drake (14:22:33) : … Very neat appropriation of ‘hack’…
Steve, this piece is a coup d’etat. To take hold of the little word “hack” and weave it with such artful grace into every detail of AGW at Hackers Central, so that if you now ask me what “hacker” means, I will without thinking or blinking say, it means perverting from within… so of course the emails are hackers emails… and if they get hacked that’s the name of the game… their game.
wow.

ScientistForTruth

Here:
http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/un-ipcc-rotting-from-the-head-down
I demonstrate conclusively that the scientific community knew about these Glaciergate errors by their being exposed in a peer-reviewed journal in 2005, which was essentially the substance of a chapter from a book published in 2004 by an authority on the Himalayas. Syed Hasnain’s pronouncements are shown to be myths, and worse. The paper appeared in Himalayan Journal of Sciences, entitled
“Himalayan misconceptions and distortions: What are the facts? Himalayan Delusions: Who’s kidding who and why — Science at the service of media, politics and the development agencies.”
In light of that, I find it almost certain that Pachauri and a lot of others knew that these were lies years before AR4 was published.
Forgive the cartoon. I was having some fun.

Thanks Steven Mosher, this was a great article, I agree with all of it. Your point about GPL licenses for climate code and data is very important.
A small typo (in two places): IPPC should be IPCC
REPLY: Fixed, thanks, A

pat

given goldman sachs’ dreams of a ‘green bubble’, google’s censoring of ‘climategate’, and WWF’s IPCC input, this is fascinating:
WWF Board of Directors:
Co-Chairman
Lawrence H. Linden
Advisory Director
Goldman Sachs
New York, NY
Robert Litterman
Advisory Director
Goldman Sachs
New York, NY
Urs Hölzle
Senior Vice President for Operations
Google
Mountain View, CA
http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/board/index.html
Rolling Stone: Matt Taibbi: Goldman Sachs: The Great American Bubble Machine
BUBBLE #6 Global Warming
And instead of credit derivatives or oil futures or mortgage-backed CDOs, the new game in town, the next bubble, is in carbon credits — a booming trillion dollar market that barely even exists yet, but will if the Democratic Party that it gave $4,452,585 to in the last election manages to push into existence a groundbreaking new commodities bubble, disguised as an “environmental plan,” called cap-and-trade.
The new carboncredit market is a virtual repeat of the commodities-market casino that’s been kind to Goldman, except it has one delicious new wrinkle: If the plan goes forward as expected, the rise in prices will be government-mandated. Goldman won’t even have to rig the game. It will be rigged in advance…
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29127316/the_great_american_bubble_machine
hopefully, climategate will put an end to this next ‘boom and bust’ cycle, but there’s more work to be done.

jaypan

OT, but …
Warren Buffet invests in Munich Re … may be too late, considering how Re insurance companies would have profited from the AGW hype.

Baa Humbug

Why use the computer term ‘hack’ instead of corrupt[ion]?
If ‘corrupt’ were used it would be unnecessary to explain: “Every hack of the system cashes out into some form of compensation to the hackers: more money for their organizations or more prestige for themselves.”
Perhap ‘hack’ is used to turn the accusation of illegal hacker on the supposed victims of the actions of our whistleblower: Well who’s the hacker then?
But I dont think this works because that accusation long ago failed to prevent scrutiny of the contents of the FOIA hack – not only in the intended audience of this article, but also in the audience of many mainstream media. And attitudes to the criminality of the computer hacker have always been ambivalent, like to the robin hood, the Pretty Boy Floyd, the Ned Kelly.
Instead, what the use of the term ‘hacker’ might do is unnecessarily increase an aire of nerdy exclusivity that is already thick enough in discussion of IPCC corruption.

Michael

Green Jobs: Grass Cutters, Land Scapers, Tree trimmers.
Blue Brown Jobs( National socialists Communist Communitarian): Democrat workers.
Red Brown Jobs( Fascist Feudalists): Republican Workers.