Tumblr Icon RSS Icon

Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails

Posted on  

"Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails"

Share:

google plus icon

This is reposted from the Union of Concerned Scientists Global Warming Blog. Another good, detailed debunking can be found at the Pew Center for Global Climate Change.

The manufactured controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit has generated a lot more heat than light over the past two weeks. Experts at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) have concluded that while the emails “do raise some valid concerns about scientific integrity, they do not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised.”

UCS’s analysis of the emails and the debate surrounding them aims to correct popular misconceptions about what the emails say, put them in scientific context and explain the importance of scientific integrity.

Media outlets are getting the story wrong. These emails don’t demonstrate anything wrong with global warming data.

Scientists didn’t “trick” anyone or “hide” anything.

Scientists are talking about understanding our climate, not hiding anything.

Some emails raise valid scientific concerns, but don’t undermine the science.

Science must be viewed in context to be properly understood.

Groups misrepresenting these emails are overplaying their hand, demonstrating their desperation.

The timing of releasing the stolen emails is suspicious.

Scientists are as human as anybody else.

Some news organizations have misreported critical aspects of the stolen email story. There is no evidence scientists did anything with temperature data they weren’t already doing openly in peer-reviewed papers.

At this time, there is no evidence that scientists “fudged,” “manipulated” or “manufactured” data. These unsupported claims, based on taking the emails out of context, are being promoted by long-time anti-science opponents of climate change legislation. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the University of East Anglia and Penn State University are separately looking into the contents of the stolen emails to assess these claims.

While the emails do raise some valid concerns about scientific integrity, the email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate.

University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit Director Phil Jones wasn’t “hiding” anything that wasn’t already being openly discussed in scientific papers. He was using a “trick”””a technique””published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

This email exchange from 1999 seems to refer to scientists examining past climate data and communicating with one another about it. In particular, Jones is talking about how scientists compare temperature data from thermometers with temperature data derived from tree rings. Comparing that data allows scientists to derive past temperature data for several centuries before accurate thermometer measurements were available. The global average surface temperature since 1880 is based on thermometer and satellite temperature measurements.

The “trick” is actually a technique (in other words, a “trick of the trade”) used in a peer-reviewed, academic science journal article published in 1998. “Hiding the decline,” another phrase that has received much attention, refers to another technique used in another academic science journal article. In any case, no one was tricking anyone or hiding anything. Rather, this email exchange shows scientists communicating about different ways to look at the same data that were being discussed at the time in the peer-reviewed literature. Later the same data were discussed at length in a 2007 IPCC report.

In some parts of the world, tree rings are a good substitute for temperature record. Trees form a ring of new growth every growing season. Generally, warmer temperatures produce thicker tree rings, while colder temperatures produce thinner ones. Other factors, such as precipitation, soil properties, and the tree’s age also can affect tree ring growth.

The “trick,” which was used in a paper published in 1998 in the science journal Nature, is to combine the older tree ring data with thermometer data. Combining the two data sets can be difficult, and scientists are always interested in new ways to make temperature records more accurate.

Tree rings are a largely consistent source of data for the past 2,000 years. But since the 1960s, scientists have noticed there are a handful of tree species in certain areas that appear to indicate temperatures that are warmer or colder than we actually know they are from direct thermometer measurement at weather stations.

“Hiding the decline” in this email refers to omitting data from some Siberian trees after 1960. This omission was openly discussed in the latest climate science update in 2007 from the IPCC, so it is not “hidden” at all.

Why Siberian trees? In the Yamal region of Siberia, there is a small set of trees with rings that are thinner than expected after 1960 when compared with actual thermometer measurements there. Scientists are still trying to figure out why these trees are outliers. Some analyses have left out the data from these trees after 1960 and have used thermometer temperatures instead.

Techniques like this help scientists reconstruct past climate temperature records based on the best available data.

In another email, Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, wrote that systems for observing short-term annual climate variation are inadequate and complained: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t”¦. Our observing system is inadequate.”

Scientists have high confidence about global temperature trends over recent decades because those observations are based on a massive amount of data. That’s why we can say with certainty that over the past several decades, the Earth has warmed. We can also say with certainty that continuing to overload the atmosphere with carbon dioxide will cause it to warm further.

But scientists are still trying to understand how the climate shifts in the short term, on a year-to-year basis for instance. In this email, Trenberth is bemoaning the lack of monitoring equipment in the ocean and atmosphere around the world that would give scientists more information to help understand exactly how short-term climate variation happens. In particular, he references 2008, which was cooler than scientists expected, but still among the 10 warmest years since instrumental records began.

The sentiments in Trenberth’s private email reflect his public communication. Trenberth talked about this same issue in a scientific paper in 2009 (pdf), in which he addresses this exact question.

Some emails do raise valid scientific integrity concerns, but they do not undermine the science.

Some emails relating to avoiding freedom of information requests and keeping articles out of journals or assessments rightfully raise concerns about scientific integrity. In all cases, scientists should always be as open as possible with their data and methods. Transparency is critical for accountability on all sides. For his part, Phil Jones claims he didn’t delete any email messages in response to freedom of information requests. If he did, that conduct would be unacceptable. But to date, there is no evidence that any emails were deleted.

Science must be viewed in context to be understood. When one places the emails in context, they don’t amount to much””and as noted above, they do not undermine climate data or research. Likewise, it is important to understand the scientific integrity claims against the scientists in context.

Regardless of whether the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit staff complied with freedom of information requests, their data is still rigorous and matches the three other independent temperature data sets at NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Japanese Meteorological Society.

Much has been made about emails regarding a certain paper that some scientists did not think should have been published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. These emails focus on a paper on solar variability in the climate over time. It was published in a peer-reviewed journal called Climate Research, but under unusual circumstances. Half of the editorial board of Climate Research resigned in protest against what they felt was a failure of the peer review process. The paper, which argued that current warming was unexceptional, was disputed by scientists whose work was cited in the paper. Many subsequent publications set the record straight, which demonstrates how the peer review process over time tends to correct such lapses. Scientists later discovered that the paper was funded by the American Petroleum Institute.

In a later e-mail, Phil Jones references two other papers he didn’t hold in high esteem. “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

Yet, the papers in question made it into the IPCC report, indicating that no restrictions on their incorporation were made. The IPCC process contains hundreds of authors and reviewers, with an exacting and transparent review process. .

The fact that groups opposing action on climate change are crying “conspiracy” shows how desperate they are to discredit scientists.

The thousands of stolen emails span more than a decade. Whoever stole them could only produce a handful of messages that, when taken out of context, might seem suspicious to people who are not familiar with the intimate details of climate science.

Opponents of climate action have been attacking climate science for years. The fact that out-of-context personal attacks on scientists are the most successful argument they can offer speaks volumes about their failure to gain any traction by arguing against the evidence.

Their strategy has unfortunate consequences, too. On December 8, the Guardian reported that University of East Anglia scientists have been receiving death threats.

The timing of the publication of these emails should make us suspicious about the motivations of the people who hacked them.

The stolen emails were published just two weeks ahead of a major U.N. climate change conference in Copenhagen. According to a British newspaper, they were originally hacked in October. Whoever published these emails likely wanted to spread misinformation about climate science to try to undermine the conference. The University of East Anglia, which housed the emails, has launched an investigation to determine who stole them.

Scientists are as human as anybody else.

Some of the other emails simply show scientists expressing frustration and””in one email””even talking (not seriously, we hope) about beating up someone whose views they find objectionable. Such chatter is not surprising to find in private emails. But they have generated widespread attention in part because they don’t mesh with the public’s image of scientists.

Scientists have a wide array of dispositions. But regardless of how scientists act, they should all advance their arguments through evidence and valid scientific interpretations. The process of science is what is important. Over time, rigorous analyses, vetted through expert peer review, tend to weed out out poorly substantiated arguments. And only the best explanations for how the world works””such as the obvious evidence that excess carbon dioxide emissions are driving global warming””survive the process.

« »

3 Responses to Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails

  1. Both of these documents are outstanding rebuttals. I have linked them both on my blog post about the incident:

    http://profmandia.blogspot.com/2009/11/climate-group-hack.html

  2. Mark Leggett says:

    Consistency. The deniers approach the East Anglia emails in exactly the same way as they do everything about global warming. They are consistent in being unethical and in misrepresenting – using what is termed incorrect argumentation, also known as the logical fallacies.

    One item from one of the emails often quoted as a problem is this: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them
    out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !”

    To interpret the quoted material one would surely need the context – not that the deniers seem to need that.

    The whole email, according to

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=419&filename=1089318616.txt

    is this:

    —————————————–
    From: Phil Jones
    To: “Michael E. Mann”
    Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
    Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004

    Mike,
    Only have it in the pdf form. FYI ONLY – don’t pass on. Relevant paras are the last
    2 in section 4 on p13. As I said it is worded carefully due to Adrian knowing Eugenia
    for years. He knows the’re wrong, but he succumbed to her almost pleading with him
    to tone it down as it might affect her proposals in the future !
    I didn’t say any of this, so be careful how you use it – if at all. Keep quiet also
    that you have the pdf.
    The attachment is a very good paper – I’ve been pushing Adrian over the last weeks
    to get it submitted to JGR or J. Climate. The main results are great for CRU and also
    for ERA-40. The basic message is clear – you have to put enough surface and sonde
    obs into a model to produce Reanalyses. The jumps when the data input change stand
    out so clearly. NCEP does many odd things also around sea ice and over snow and ice.
    The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas 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 IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
    them
    out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
    Cheers
    Phil

    ———————-

    Well, when I read that, I see it as evidence for suggesting redefining the peer-review literature ,yes. But not to subvert it, which is the only interpretation which has been put on it – maybe subverting soundness is all the deniers recognise – but to defend it, improve it, make it better.

    I do not need to mention certain small journals which abuse the peer review process. All I need to do is to repeat that redefine can just as much mean improve, strengthen, not just, and automatically, subvert.

  3. Skip,

    No. It just becomes quite tiring that we have to keep showing people that there is no massive conspiracy. If one just took a moment to think about the extremely low probability of a global warming hoax, we could move on to actually doing something about it.

    Analogy:

    Our house is on fire but it isn’t too bad yet. Unfortunately, we are spraying gasoline onto the house while you and I argue about:

    1) Whether there really is a fire
    2) If there is a fire, who started it
    3) The fire is a big hoax and the house is doing just fine.