'Climategate' - The Science is Sound; The Silence was the Slip-Up
It is now generally accepted that the world is becoming a warmer place as a result of climate change. What is heavily debated though is the extent to which humans are to blame for such changes. Climate change sceptics are of the opinion that the current rise in temperatures and associated consequences, such as increasing glacier melt rate, the rise in sea level and the reduction in African rainfall, are not related to the actions of mankind.
In November 2009, these very sceptics were particularly vocal when a series of emails were leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA). Some saw this leak as a political act designed to destabilise the Copenhagen Summit which was held the following month. It was hoped that a new treaty to curb greenhouse gas emissions would be agreed upon at Copenhagen but the summit was a flop, leading to the resignation of the then UN Climate Chief Yvo de Boer. The world held its breath as the sceptics declared this to be evidence to support their belief that man-made climate change was a conspiracy theory, falsified to encourage a halt in population growth.
Joe Public was both outraged and perplexed. An inquiry was the only thing that could clear this mess up. But why stop at one? Three inquiries have now been undertaken and the findings of these reviews are highlighted below.
March 2010: The first inquiry came from the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee and said the CRU should be more open and transparent and must comply with Freedom of Information laws. The report found that there was no evidence of malpractice. It was however noted that the disclosed emails had the potential to damage the reputation of the climate science and the scientists involved.
April 2010: A second inquiry looked at the scientific output from the CRU. The Oxburgh Report pointed out that within the UEAs School of Environmental Sciences, the CRU is a very small academic body. It noted that there are just three full time and one part time academic staff members and around a dozen PhD students, research associates and support staff. As with the first inquiry, they found no evidence of malpractice, but criticised the lack of organisation within the CRU. It was commented though that such levels of organised chaos are the norm in scientific academia. It was also suggested that a closer association with professional statisticians would be beneficial in ensuring the most appropriate statistical techniques were used to critique and analyse data.
July 2010: The third inquiry, the Independent Climate Change Emails Review is said to be the most comprehensive of the three inquiries and reached comparable conclusions to the others. Chairman, Sir Muir Russell found that CRU was not in a position to withhold access to data or tamper with it and therefore the argument that CRU has something to hide did not stand up. The inquiry found no evidence that the CRU researchers distorted the peer review process employed by scientific journals, or unduly influenced IPCC reports by ignoring research papers that contradicted their own findings. They concluded that the CRU had been unhelpful in responding to freedom of information requests, but noted that university management should have noticed this sooner and put a process in place to counter. In the future, it has been recommended that such requests are dealt with by the university rather than the unit. The review represents a powerful warning to academic institutions that openness must become a deeper part of how they operate.
On a similar theme, reviews into the IPCC summary conclusions of the Fourth Assessment Report (2007) continue. The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency recently reported on an investigation into the IPCC report, commenting that there were in fact no errors that would undermine the main conclusions on possible future regional impacts of climate change. It conclusively found climate change was visible in many places around the world, and noted that this will become more serious under further temperature increases. As with the emails investigations, this report highlighted the need for increased transparency of foundation data and the need to report more fairly rather than focusing on the key negative impacts.
Leading scientists have described Climategate as a "bogus, manufactured scandal" and a "shameful history in the chapter of news reporting". Ben Stewart, Head of Media at Greenpeace agreed that the media were to blame for the additional public confusion. He pointedly noted that the leaked emails had not changed the mechanism by which excess carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere. That is a fact that is not up for debate. Unsatisfied with the outcome of the three email inquiries, Dr Peiser, director of influential sceptical think-tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, has promised that his organisation has commissioned an inquiry into the set up and running of the three aforementioned inquiries. An inquiry onto inquiries...could it be that the final chapter of Climategate is yet to be written?
Print this page