By Ross McKitrick, Ph.D
Professor of Environmental Economics, University of Guelph, Canada
Introduction
News broke on or around 19 November 2009 that a large archive of emails and files from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in the UK had been released on the internet. The contents of the files were sufficiently disconcerting to the public, governments and university administrations that a number of inquiries were established. Several of my research projects were discussed not only in the so-called “Climategate” emails themselves, but also in the investigations, and I made detailed submissions of evidence to three of the panels.
Consequently I take considerable interest in the outcome of these inquiries, especially with regards to whether they approached the issues impartially, investigated thoroughly and drew valid conclusions that fully reflected the evidence.
As of 30 August 2010 all five had issued their reports. The overall impression that has been created is that the scientists and their work were vindicated. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Chair Rajendra Pachauri declared in a recent interview1
“the doubts raised have proved to be unfounded.”
Considerable reliance is being placed upon the outcome of these investigations. As I will
show, for the most part the inquiries were flawed, but where they actually functioned as proper inquiries, they upheld many criticisms. But a surprising number of issues were sidestepped or handled inadequately. The world still awaits a proper inquiry into climategate: one that is not stacked with global warming advocates, and one that is prepared to cross-examine evidence, interview critics as well as supporters of the CRU and other IPCC players, and follow the evidence where it clearly leads.
Altogether there were five inquiries or investigations, conducted by, respectively, The UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, The Oxburgh panel, the Independent Climate Change Emails Review under Sir Muir Russell, Penn State University and the InterAcademy Council. The first three were established in the UK and focused on scientists at the CRU. The fourth was focused on Michael Mann of Penn State University, a major correspondent in the Climategate archive. The fifth was
commissioned by the IPCC itself as a review of its policies and procedures.
Many accusations and insinuations began flying around during the uproar after the climategate emails were released. I would distill the main concerns down to the following questions.
1. Did the scientists involved in the email exchanges manipulate, hide, invent or otherwise misrepresent evidence in IPCC or World Meteorological Organization (WMO) reports so as to mislead readers, including policymakers?
2. Did the scientists involved delete emails or other documents related to the IPCC process in order to prevent disclosure of information subject to Freedom of Information laws?
3. Did the scientists involved in the email exchanges express greater doubts or uncertainties about the science in their own professional writings and in their interactions with one another than they allowed to be stated in reports of the IPCC or WMO that were intended for policymakers?
4. Did the scientists involved in the email exchanges take steps individually or in collusion to block access to data or methodologies in order to prevent external examination of their work?
5. Did the scientists involved in the email exchanges take steps individually or in collusion to block publication of papers, or to intimidate or discredit journals, in order to prevent rival scientific evidence from being published?
My examination of the Climategate inquiries centers on the extent to which they succeeded in providing credible answers to the above questions. As will be shown, the various inquiries reviewed evidence that leads to an affirmative answer in each case, and in many cases the inquiries themselves report affirmative answers, yet they couched such conclusions in terms that gave the opposite impression. In other cases they simply left the questions unanswered. In some cases they avoided the issues by looking instead at irrelevant questions.
Two further questions follow from these, pointing to issues larger than Climategate itself, which many people have asked in the wake of the inquiries.
6. Is the IPCC a reliable source of information on climate change?
7. Is the science concerning the current concerns about climate change sound?
I will return to these questions in the concluding section to show that the inquiries support a negative answer to the former and are uninformative on the latter.
Read the complete report here (PDF)
James Sexton says:
September 15, 2010 at 6:55 am “The answers to the first 5 questions are in the affirmative. Negative on the last 2.”
I would actually disagree! The answer to the first 5 questions is NO. Why? Because the persons involved in those discreditable activities were NOT scientists. A scientist rejects theories that conflict with the facts. These miscreants may have had some scientific training, or even have been employed as scientists at some time previously, but throughout this sorry affair they were acting as paid propagandists and ideological sophists. The AGW scam is not science. As a scientific hypothesis it was conclusively falsified thirty years ago.
I am convinced there is an element of British national pride here getting in the way as well. CRU is one of a handful of pre-eminent authorities on the subject in the world, and the ruling-class element of the Brits cannot bear to have it cuffed around too much. Instinctively they understand it would be if a real independent inquiry with actual investigative tools (subpoena power and testimony under oath) and the resources and time to use them.
Tom says:
September 15, 2010 at 6:59 am
“If you didn’t have predetermined answers to your own questions as following:………….”
=========================================================
Tom, this isn’t science. (Where impartiality is a requisite.) These are statements of evidence. (Where impartiality is impossible.)
A crime, rather, many crimes have been committed. Dr. McKitrick is an aggrieved party. (Along with the rest of the world.) It is quite evident that scientists have conspired and subsequently members of inquiries have conspired to hide misdeeds of scientists. I’m not sure how they view this across the pond, but in the U.S. it is called conspiracy to commit fraud. It is a violation of U.S. code TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 19 > § 371.
Whether the evidence will ever be shown in a court of law remains to be seen, but it doesn’t make the actions any less criminal.
Mods, my post went away again. Or maybe you guys are trying to decide whether to post or snip?
Released is the new expression for stolen?
I prefer the term “liberated”.
A huge amount of work to produce this well written, lucid account of the recent whitewash inquiries. If only our legislators would read it and act appropriately.
No-one who is familiar with the writings of M and M, Lindzen ,Spencer, Pielke etc, etc could not fail to be convinced that AGW is a scam.
Geo says: ‘There is an element of British pride here…’ I do not think so. What I see, as a Brit, is incestuous scientific, political and pecuniary self interest at work. All the inquiries, including the Penn University one , followed the same pussy footing approach .
It became clear to me, as a complete layman, what was going on. There was never any intention that any real truths would emerge. In all five inquiries, the committees were loaded with members , most of whom were acquainted with each other and were therefore unlikely to upset the applecart.
It is suggested that there should be an independent inquiry. Since only qualified scientists who are going to be either warmists or skeptics, can understand and analyse the data how can any conclusion be taken as independent.
We should start a count down of days from 19th November 2009 until we hear once more from the leaker at CRU (known by some as a ‘hacker’). It can’t be that far down the road.
It is amazing that we have three people involved who have the same characteristic: meticulous attention to detail and the facts – Ross McItrick, Steve McIntyre and Andrew Montford.
It is no contest really because they are up against an opposition which is the complete opposite: sloppy and careless. Name one “climate scientist” or anyone involved in the inquiries who shows meticulous attention to detail and the facts. There aren’t any.
—————
Ian C,
The anniversary of the CRU email release would be excellent timing for the formal/comprehensive police investigation reports to come out.
As to additional email releases, hopefully any releases will be either from FOIA requests or releases from the climategate scientists owning up.
John
James Sexton says:
September 15, 2010 at 8:55 am
“it is called conspiracy to commit fraud – It is a violation of U.S. code TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 19 > § 371”.
Indeed. And in English law a conspiracy comes into existence when two or more persons agree to pursue a course of action which would, were it carried out, necessarily result in the commission of the offence.
I’m sure people could be prosecuted for what went on (deletion of emails, etc..) and the evidence could be found – or the conspiracy charge would stand on the existing evidence. But the political will is just not there, especially when Prince Charles actually turns up at their gaf just to lend them moral support.
Absolute respect to tireless workers like Mr McKitrick. I am very grateful for all of their efforts to get the truth more widely disseminated.
People like Mr Ross McKitrick are a complete thorn in the side of the establishment – we need people like him. Where would we be otherwise?
Another who will not rest until he get his predetermined answer! Go get’em tiger.
Tim says:
September 15, 2010 at 6:39 am (Edit)
“Never hold an enquiry unless you know the outcome beforehand.”
And
“If you want to avoid having to give awkward answers, keep ’em asking the wrong questions.”
I think everyone can recognize Dr. McKitrick’s source of bias on this subject – that is everyone except Dr. McKitrick. He may well have some legitimate grievances brought out by these illicitly exposed private e-mails but, considering his claims as an injured party, he would hardly be an impartial judge to any investigation’s outcome.
Dear Tom,
The “Climatologists” discredited the “science” on their own. McKintrick is merely confirming that for us.
Jan says:
September 15, 2010 at 7:12 am
“Released is the new expression for stolen?”
Stolen is the new Released.
This is the moral equivalent of Professor Jones acting as the accused and the defence and the prosecution too, in front of a jury of his close friends and acquaintances.
Of course he was acquitted. These investigations never, at any point, even attempted to establish the truth, but spent all their time (less regular lunch and other breaks) attempting to prove the integrity of Jones and were highly selective with the limited evidence examined in order to make their case. So selective in fact that they asked the accused to select the evidence for them. Even then they did find evidence of anti-science in the form of secrecy, collusion and poor (inaccurate) record keeping.
It would be like a defendant in court being asked to select which evidence the prosecution is allowed to use to try its case.
The Climate Gate emails and supporting data files remain prima facie evidence of corruption, fraud, conspiracy to defraud and the debasement and total perversion of the scientific method to create “evidence” supporting their pre-conceived theory in support of their political agenda.
Benjamin P. says:
September 15, 2010 at 10:18 am
Another who will not rest until he get his predetermined answer! Go get’em tiger.
=========================================================
lol, yet another drive by from Benji. Care to show where any of the statements in this report are false? Just like you were asked to do yesterday, by your silence in that report, I would assume you could not. But here is yet another report that essentially makes the same statements. This is very odd because the perspective is different. Dr. McKitrick has been intimately involved. He has been directly aggrieved. What does this tell you? Two separate perspectives reporting almost identical views with statements which none, apparently, can refute.
Care to stay and engage? Alarmists seem to be getting fewer and fewer these days.
Until a competent authority, with the full legal authority of the law, properly and publicly addresses the issues raised, this will never be settled, and the damage to science and the public confidence of science will continue.
Lame defence’s, spin and the sort of tripe that sites like Real Climate serves up as complete exoneration of THEIR team will only prolong the agony. With so many critical eyes watching and searching, it is only a matter of time till the next scandal is exposed.
Time for some to do some soul searching and open up from the inside to finally set this to rest. Incompetent or white wash inquiries won’t do!! From there, the science then has some rebuilding to regain confidence and put in place checks and balances to ensure, that science that is used or intended for use by government agencies for planning, mitigation of risk or political development, is vetted and assessed as fit for purpose.
Otherwise it will always be open for civil litigation, or manipulation for political rather than scientific advancement.
The Last but not the Least Question to be made: Are you or have you ever been serious?
Once upon a time we thought you were serious, now we are absolutely convinced YOU ARE A JOKE.
Do you hear the kids laughing?…. they laugh about Global Warming:
HE INVENTED THE INTERNET!
HE INVENTED GLOBAL WARMING TOO!
Please don’t invent anything else or we’ll die from laughing!
Chris Wood says:
September 15, 2010 at 9:40 am
“…..
It is suggested that there should be an independent inquiry. Since only qualified scientists who are going to be either warmists or skeptics, can understand and analyse the data how can any conclusion be taken as independent.”
=========================================================
One doesn’t have to be a climate scientist to understand malfeasance.
Reply to; Ian C, Sept 15, 29:40 am;
No, they’ve run about with their little investigation, they’ve made a big scene at CRU, updated server security and left a trap with which to identify the leaker should it happen again.
There’ll likely be no more information through that channel.
[snip – childish taunt at CRU, stop it – Anthony]
They followed the scientific method!
Aim: To prove the actions of mankind are harming this planet by burning of fossil fuel.
Method: Assume that it is and produce data that concurs.
Apparatus: Lots of stuff but mostly a computer or three.
Results: Its worse than we thought.
Conclusion: Robust, when you hide the decline:-).
When the previous labour Government practiced its whitewashes on the Iraq war and WMD, they at least examined all sides before producing the biased whitewash.
In this case, these inquiries did not even examine the opposing view at all.
Whether McKitrick has his own bias or not, it does not alter the fact that NONE of these inquiries examined the underlying science, NONE of them interviewed critics and skeptics and they ALL failed to hold an unbiased examination.
These were the equivalent of a court not allowing the prosecuting team into the court and asking the defendants what evidence the court can accept.