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)
GeoFlynx says:
September 15, 2010 at 10:30 am
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.
========================================================
True, but impartiality isn’t necessary for submission of evidence. The scientific methods are not applied when investigating malfeasance. Dr. McKitrick is offering proof of malfeasance.
Presently, the only judges are the greater public. Further, Dr. McKitrick isn’t the only one to offer such documentation. Not that any was really necessary, in that we all have followed the several sordid affairs day after day, but it is nice to have two separate chronicles publicly offered one day apart that lists the same events.
To my knowledge, none has stepped forward to refute either chronicle.
GeoFlynx says:
September 15, 2010 at 10:30 am
“these illicitly exposed private e-mails”
You must be joking! Certainly cannot be said to be private emails anyway.
And are you saying whistleblowing is now illegal (“illicitly exposed”)?
Oh, but we don’t know if it’s hacking or wistleblowing yet, do we?
No, because the plod are still ‘investigating’, along with the Domestic Extremism Unit.
And nobody expects the … oh never mind, sorry.
But seriously, GeoFlynx, do you believe that? Seriously, you want your public employees – at the highest level – to just not be accountable to the people; they can look at your email but you can’t look at theirs?
Or are you just a paid troll, sent into cyber-battle to counter the ‘growing awareness’ – sow those seeds of doubt and double doubt in the fertile psychosoil of cyberspace?
I seriously advise anyone who is sceptical of the existence of large numbers of paid trolls sent into cyberspace to further a geopolitical (or even domestic) agenda to do some internet research on the subject. And no, I’m not saying that is going on here, I’m just saying it’s something to keep an eye out for. It does happen.
I know, I just fed the troll…
Probably on a bloody list now…
James Sexton says:
September 15, 2010 at 10:44 am
Care to stay and engage? Alarmists seem to be getting fewer and fewer these days.
———————-
It is the Son of the Inquiry of the inquiries? Maybe there is some fatigue
and unwillingness to invest more time in this. It is a question of perspective
also. The skeptics think this really has some effect on the scientific message
of IPPC. The majority scientists draw the opposite conclusion.
What’s with all the concerns about bias? Investigations, enquiries, politics, law are generally meant to be adversarial. There should be bias! I see the Mckitricks, Montfords, etc as our advocates. It’s the only way to get the truth.
cheers David
Ross, good work!
Don’t let them whitewash with impunity. Thanks.
James Sexton said : Care to stay and engage? Alarmists seem to be getting fewer and fewer these days.
I agree James. It’s so much more fun when the greenie beenies stay for a chat.
And are you saying whistleblowing is now illegal (“illicitly exposed”)?
Oh, but we don’t know if it’s hacking or wistleblowing yet, do we?
No, because the plod are still ‘investigating’, along with the Domestic Extremism Unit.
No No No it’s the Domestic Science Unit. At UEA, you know
Mikael Pihlström says:
September 15, 2010 at 12:28 pm
James Sexton says:
September 15, 2010 at 10:44 am
Care to stay and engage? Alarmists seem to be getting fewer and fewer these days.
———————-
It is the Son of the Inquiry of the inquiries? Maybe there is some fatigue
and unwillingness to invest more time in this. It is a question of perspective
also. The skeptics think this really has some effect on the scientific message
of IPPC. The majority scientists draw the opposite conclusion.
========================================================
Really? That’s funny because even the IPCC has recently stated they need to rework the way they do business. But then, I’d really love to the a recent polling of “scientists”. I don’t even want to know where you pulled that assertion from. Mikael, are you really defending the actions of those people? The flaunting of laws? The scientific misbehavior? Really? And then to spew something about “majority scientists” is laughable.
Maybe I should have qualified the invitation to engage to the point of stating something credible in the attempted engagement.
Ross.
Could you delete that *.pdf about the enquiries. Bishop will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – bit of a piss-up in London.
Can you also email Steve and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will also be getting McShane and Wyner to do likewise.
Cheers
Phil
Mikael Pihlström says:
September 15, 2010 at 12:28 pm
“The skeptics think this really has some effect on the scientific message
of IPPC. The majority scientists draw the opposite conclusion.”
==============
Well, therein might lie the root of your problem, Mr. Pihlström: you seem to believe that the IPCC has a “scientific message”. I’m not sure that it ever did – but at this point in time, it certainly does not. As Shapiro’s IAC report clearly demonstrated, the “scientific message” of the IPCC is very much polluted/diluted by its unscientific methods.
Considering that there is little – if any – evidence that the “majority [of] scientists” have actually done any independent investigation of the so-called science behind this “scientific message” (peer review doesn’t count, because not unlike all 3 investigations, peer review does not include any examination of the underlying “science”) one can hardly put much credence in their “conclusion”.
Btw, I find it curious that in their latest attempt at damage control, CRU appear to have either moved the goal-posts or adopted a slightly different spin (or perhaps both!). The U.K.’s Daily Mail quotes a UEA spokesperson as saying:
“there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that the world is warming and that humankind is having a marked effect on the rate of warming. ” [emphasis added -hro]
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/199607/Climate-change-Failures-of-global-warming-probes-let-down-public
Let’s compare this with the actual “scientific message”. According Hulme, this “overwhelming scientific consensus” that isn’t [see http://hro001.wordpress.com/2010/06/18/honey-i-shrunk-the-consensus/%5D consists of the following:
“warming of the climate system is unequivocal and that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid 20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
Certainly no mention of any “rate of warming”. Indeed, not even that noble institute, the Union of Concerned Scientists, doesn’t mention any “rate of warming”.
Although it is entirely within the realm of possibility that the UEA was relying on the “scientific message” of the largely ignored “Copenhagen Diagnosis” – in which the “scientific message” to the effect of “it’s worse than we thought (because the computer models tell us so)” was replaced by “it’s happening faster than we thought (because the computer models tell us so)”
However, considering that UEA are evidently also now claiming that their “published outputs … remain open to anyone”, one should probably take anything they say with a very hefty grain of salt!
James Sexton says:
September 15, 2010 at 10:44 am
Listen, man, you folks said that the original investigations where no good because the folks were “pro-agw” and had “be determined” answers to their investigation.
Welcome to the other side of the coin.
McKittrick is one of the heroes who exposed Mann as incompetent with statistics. One incompetent with stats is simply NOT a scientist. A scientist does not actually have to understand the subject terribly well himself–but if not, he chooses software that was designed by able people and uses it appropriately and correctly.
That sai–it is entirely possibly that Mann’s hokey stick graph is correct. No, not about the warming–you don’t grow grapes in Canada today, so we know “Vinland” was founded in a warmer period. Remember, all the screaming is about warmiung, but we cannot measure temperatures from previous times, and must use a proxy.
Mann’s proxy was tree ring growth. That is enhanced by higher temperatures (why are we complaining????) and by precipitation, by atmospheric CO2 and other factors. CO2 has been high in the latter 20th century and so far in this one. That has a bigger effect than temperature. We may really be seeing a big increase in the growth of trees–and in that case, other plants as well.
The big question is–how did that come to be bad?
Benjamin P. says:
September 15, 2010 at 1:57 pm
“Welcome to the other side of the coin.”
=========================================================
Ben, you’re confusing the roles. This pdf isn’t an investigation. It isn’t a prelude to a trial or a hearing. It is a chronicle of events that shows the investigations and hearings to be exactly the pre-determined white-washes they were made out to be. It would be one thing if these facts were subjective, they are not. It would also be another thing if the facts were simply from one man’s perspective. They are not. The other pdf from yesterday states almost exactly what this one states. Why? Because they only recorded sequences of events. And I still haven’t seen one refutation of the listed facts of either chronicle. My guess is that the silence is under the advice from a lawyer. But, that is a subjective statement. See the difference?
James Sexton says:
September 15, 2010 at 11:42 am
True, but impartiality isn’t necessary for submission of evidence. The scientific methods are not applied when investigating malfeasance. Dr. McKitrick is offering proof of malfeasance.
GeoFlynx – It would seem that the documented evidence Dr. McKitrick submitted was not sufficient to prove malfeasance in any of the (four?) “Climate Gate” investigations. Perhaps the reason Dr. McKitrick’s academic achievements did not receive the proper acclaim, he himself thinks they deserve, lies more in the force of their content rather than the result of academic conspiracy. Often a player, when freshly cut from the team, blames the coach rather than focusing on improving his play. Science is difficult and some of the most cited and worthwhile papers have had a hard time getting published. Realizing this, there is little to be gained by crying foul.
There is a sequence here. I hope others see it.
Whent the attempt to discredit the science fails.
Then there is an attempt to discredit the scientists.
When the attempt to discredit the Scientists fails
Then there is an attempt to discredit the reviewers and the review.
Where do we go from here?
There is one point which I take very strongly from this document.
“(i) I take real exception to having simulation runs described as experiments (without at least the
qualification of ‘computer’ experiments). It does a disservice to centuries of real
experimentation and allows simulations output to be considered as real data. This last is a very
serious matter, as it can lead to the idea that real ‘real data’ might be wrong simply because it
disagrees with the models! That is turning centuries of science on its head.”
Just exactly how do you “experiment” with the World Climate????? Apart from digging up the billions of tons of carbon locked up in the ground and releasing it into the atmosphere?
There is a level of “common sense” required when dealing with new and groundbreaking science. This comment fails the grade!
Lets be honest here. A theif stole a subset of thousands of emails. These emails were then massaged and a further subset of them were released “out of context” to make a story. This “story” has been investigated and found to be false.
The “story” ends.
The attempts will not.
It will all become moot in the end anyway so not really worth getting into a lather about.
Another great piece of work. I wonder if it will have any effect at all on IPCC ?
@GeoFlynx: ‘Science is difficult and some of the most cited and worthwhile papers have had a hard time getting published.’
Especially when “peer-reviewed” or overseen by the Hockey Team perhaps?
“The other paper by McKitrick and Michaels is just garbage—as you knew. De Freitas is the Editor again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well—frequently, as I see it. I can’t see either of these papers being in the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow—even if we have to redefine what the “peer-review literature” is! ”
Email 1089318616:
http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/mail/1089318616.txt
From:
http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/
There is only one possible resolution to this debate and that is for both sides, the sceptics and the ‘warmists’, to present themselves in a properly constituted Court of Law.
The ‘warmists’ would, by their own assertions, have to be the Defendants; they are asserting a position, claiming certain evidence to support that assertion and it is that assertion which is under test.
The sceptics are the Litigants, desiring to test the validity of the assertion being made: “Are the actions of human-kind having a deleterious effect on the various climates under which human-kind lives?”
Evidence, palpable and provable will have to be brought by both sides; the evidence produced will have to withstand forensic scrutiny before being admitted for consideration. Only matters of fact can pass such a test, no opinions can cross such a bar.
I would dearly like to witness such proceedings!
Judging by your cited standards of evidence as practiced by “any of the (four?) ‘Climate Gate’ investigations,” there is no conceivable amount of evidence satisfactory to those inquiries capable of demonstrating that tea is a beverage frequently consumed by the populace of England or East Anglia.
GeoFlynx says:
September 15, 2010 at 2:33 pm
“It would seem that the documented evidence Dr. McKitrick submitted was not sufficient to prove malfeasance in any of the (four?) “Climate Gate” investigations……..Science is difficult and some of the most cited and worthwhile papers have had a hard time getting published.”
========================================================
Nice sleight of hand. Did you even read the Dr. McKitrick’s chronicle? The evidence Dr. McKitrick is presenting today has more to do with the “investigations”. Or are you defending the actions of the scientists? I would point out, too, that Dr. McKitrick is indeed published. If you did read the chronicle, you’d see it has very little to do with his being published. Maybe, you approve of fabricating evidence and think it is scientifically acceptable to mislead policy makers of the world. You would have fit right in with the other panelists. That said, you would still be just as wrong. I would just state, that before any evidence can be deemed sufficient or not, it must considered first. Apparently, his input was not. GeoFlynx, you could actually read the pdf first, before commenting on it.
A group of environmentalist activists from a third rate university are caught calling what they do “science” whilst stretching the bounds of credibility of evidence etc. beyond even what would be considered OK in many arts subjects … dare I even say politics.
So, what did they do wrong? Many people use the word “science” without really meaning hard science … like “UFO science”, and “Alien abduction science”, even homoeopathy “science”. Science isn’t a trademark, it isn’t a term that is legally protected, and it is perfectly OK for any old third rate environmentalist course to assume the title “science” without ever having any intention of sticking the rules of real science.
So … what’s all the fuss about?
@ur momisugly Stephen Brown says:
September 15, 2010 at 3:22 pm
“There is only one possible resolution to this debate and that is for both sides, the sceptics and the ‘warmists’, to present themselves in a properly constituted Court of Law…. I would dearly like to witness such proceedings!”
I would dearly like to find a judge willing or capable of sitting on the case.
NeilT says:
September 15, 2010 at 3:05 pm
“There is a sequence here. I hope others see it.”……”It will all become moot in the end anyway so not really worth getting into a lather about.”
========================================================
We do see a sequence, its called duck, dodge, and hide.
Neil, you’re taking exception to one of the panelists of the Oxburgh inquiry, Michael Kelly, Professor of Physics. While you may have attempted to read the pdf, apparently you didn’t understand what it was stating. But, while we’re on the subject, I’ll indulge you. I believe what Prof. Kelly was stating, is that a computer run doesn’t rise to the level of evidence. It isn’t the same as observations. The reason is because we don’t know all of the factors and values of inputs. Consequently, we know all computer runs and simulations will be wrong. When a scientist combines to elements and observes a chemical reaction, then documents and then replicates and then offers the same to others and others do the same, we know those observations to be correct. I believe that is what Prof. Kelly was stating.
This is one of the reasons this issue won’t go away. You see, even the panelists that attempted to vindicate their colleagues know they are wrong. They can’t justify the unjustifiable.
Thanks for pointing it out, though, it bares repeating.
[several bridges too far ~ ctm]
Mikael Pihlström says:
September 15, 2010 at 12:28 pm
James Sexton says:
September 15, 2010 at 10:44 am
Care to stay and engage? Alarmists seem to be getting fewer and fewer these days.
———————-
It is the Son of the Inquiry of the inquiries? Maybe there is some fatigue
and unwillingness to invest more time in this. It is a question of perspective
also. The skeptics think this really has some effect on the scientific message
of IPPC. The majority scientists draw the opposite conclusion.
—————————
Speaking of fatigue, aren’t the CAGW supporters tired of coming here and making this same comment over and over again – as they’ve been doing for nearly a year? “The science has not been affected by Climategate”, “The Science has not been affected by Watts’ Surface Stations Project,” “The Science has not been affected by E.M. Smith’s expose of the closing down of surface stations” “the Science has not been affected by the discovery of the distortions in the IPCC IV Report” etc etc etc…. Meanwhile, we can all see evidence that the CAGW position has shifted enormously and those confident projections of catastrophe have been toned down in most of the MSM. It will take a while for a majority of scientists to feel confident enough to break away from CAGW given the bullying that has been carried on in academic science. (Tell me about bullying – I had to sit though one hell of a departmental meeting yesterday, and it’s a sin how a small number of bullies can silence and control a room full of otherwise reasonable and responsible academics.) But the time is coming when the evidence will be so evidently thin that alarmism will be silenced and science can be carried on with greater freedom and less attention to politically correct posturings.