Not so Swift, Hackers: Why the scandal sometimes called “ClimateGate” is overblown

Chris Mooney contributes this post.

And now, the climate change deniers will claim a scalp.

Yesterday, climate researcher Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia in the UK—which is responsible for one of three important datasets tracking global temperature trends—announced he would be stepping aside pending an independent review of allegations that have emerged in the scandal variously referred to as “ClimateGate” and the “SwiftHack.” It’s just the latest development in a saga that began when a boatload of CRU emails and documents, obtained through an illegal computer hacking, made their way into the public arena last month. The files were instantly seized upon by climate change skeptics and deniers, who touted them—with a combination of glee and histrionic outrage—as evidence of mainline scientists conspiring to quash legitimate dissent, and to conceal problems with the data and analyses used to demonstrate human-caused global warming.

The truth, however, is that while the CRU emails don’t always look very good—and not all of them can necessarily be defended—in the end this saga amounts to little more than a distraction from the real and burning issues in climate science and climate policy. Moreover, its suspicious timing—coming just weeks before the U.N. Copenhagen climate conference—suggests a strategic attempt to undermine those international deliberations by once again casting doubt on the scientific basis for concern about climate change—a tried, true, and seemingly unending political strategy.

Unfortunately for climate skeptics, the CRU hacking incident fails to support the burden that they have placed upon it. Whatever behavior was revealed in these emails, even its most salacious interpretation can scarcely undermine the global edifice of knowledge about the causes of ongoing climate change—which may be bolstered by, but certainly does not rely solely upon, CRU’s research and analyses. Mainline scientists fully recognize this; thus, following the CRU hacking, the American Meteorological Society reaffirmed its longstanding statement on the human causation of climate change, remarking that “Even if some of the charges of improper behavior in this particular case turn out to be true—which is not yet clearly the case—the impact on the science of climate change would be very limited.”

In truth, of course, few if any of the CRU emails could legitimately be called scandalous. True, the files show scientists carrying on in a far less guarded fashion than they would in public, and some of them do appear suspicious—but in each individual case, we must also understand the context. Typically, the email-zipping scientists now under massive scrutiny are reacting in the communications to various controversies and scandals in the field—most of which are, in turn, the result of systematic attacks on climate research by conservative think tanks, politicians, and a small group of “skeptic” scientists.

Take, for instance, a rather innocent email from the year 2003 that has been made much hay of, in which climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University opines that “I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.” This has been depicted as evidence of some systematic attempt to suppress dissent or manipulate the scientific process, but the conclusion is unwarranted. Mann is referring to an episode in which this little-known journal published a wildly controversial paper on historic temperature trends that was widely attacked and picked apart by mainstream researchers; in the wake of its publication, several editors at the journal actually resigned. No wonder scientists like Mann were upset with Climate Research. That’s especially so given that, despite its flaws, the controversial Soon & Baliunas paper was instantly and inappropriately thrust into political debate at the highest level via a Senate hearing convened by Oklahoma global warming denier James Inhofe, who claimed that the paper “shifts the paradigm” away from the conclusion that global warming is human caused. (Not.)

Or take another email that has been much touted, one in which Phil Jones writes, “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The word “trick,” and the phrase “hide the decline,” have been treated as smoking guns by climate skeptics, but once again, the conclusion is unwarranted. As the bloggers at RealClimate.org (including Mann) note, “trick” here is simply a methodological device or innovation, in this case for merging and presenting data. “Hide the decline” might seem more problematic when taken out of context, but what this actually means is the exclusion of one set of climate records (based on tree rings) that do not show warming after 1960, and are known to be problematic for this reason and not considered reliable. Far from being scandalous, then, this is good scientific practice.

Perhaps the most troubling document in the CRU cache is one that shows Phil Jones actively emailing other climate researchers, telling them to “delete any emails” subject to a Freedom of Information request. Jones now claims he didn’t actually delete any; Mann, who received the email in question, says likewise; and CRU itself says that “No record has been deleted, altered, or otherwise dealt with in any fashion with the intent of preventing the disclosure of all, or any part, of the requested information.” It is understandable that climate scientists under such intense and often politically driven scrutiny would bristle at the prospect of having skeptics selectively reanalyze their data with an ax to grind (indeed, such a qualm about selective interpretation is fully borne out by responses to the CRU emails). Still, such an email is troubling, and the inquiry just launched will understandably probe how CRU has responded to a “deluge of Freedom of Information requests.”

But whatever that inquiry shows, this core fact remains: Just because a group of scientists were found to have behaved like imperfect human beings in emails they thought would remain private does not mean that we don’t have to worry about global warming. Anyone arguing otherwise is making a stunning leap based on the most scanty and inappropriate of evidence—and the willingness of climate skeptics to do this has always been, and will remain, the real scandal.

Chris Mooney is the author of several books, including The Republican War on Science and Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future, co-authored by Sheril Kirshenbaum. He and Kirshenbaum blog at “The Intersection.”

Posted by Chris Mooney | December 2, 2009 | Share This |

Tags: Climate Change

Comments on this article

You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

17 Responses to “Not so Swift, Hackers: Why the scandal sometimes called “ClimateGate” is overblown”

Wavefunction says:
Chris, you have always been acutely sensitive to the public image of science, as demonstrated in your fine “The Republican War on Science” and the more recent “Unscientific America”. You have always argued that the public image of science, for better or worse, matters as much as the science itself in many cases.

Given this background, I find it remarkable that you don’t explicitly admit that the public image of global warming has suffered a real and potentially serious setback with the CRU email hack. The science has remained intact, no doubt about it, but we would be burying our head in the sand and providing more fuel to the deniers if we don’t admit that the reputation of climate science in the public eye has taken a beating with this incident, whether it was warranted or not. Unless we admit it, we would not make efforts to fix it.

Also, call me pessimistic, but I have no doubt that this incident will add yet another arrow in the quiver of the deniers at the Copenhagen meeting. To what extent it will damage the proceedings of the meeting remains to be seen, but I feel pretty sure that it will not be without impact.
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:21 pm
TTT says:
Our public image always “suffers setbacks.” That is the sole purpose for existence of the denialists and conspiracists, whereas our side has to actually work for a living. Michael Crichton’s drive-by job was a #1 bestseller, and before him there was Bjorn Lomborg, and before him there was Gregg Easterbrook. Every latest kerfluffle gets overhyped as The Final Nail ™.

What are we supposed to do other than point out that the latest accusations are just as inane and distorted as all that came before? We’re still trying to convince people that nobody really believed in “global cooling in the 1970s,” and the only way to do that is to quickly and compellingly provide the evidence. How could (and why should) we possibly treat this “hide the decline” misinterpretation any other way?
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Tim Miles says:
Thanks for this article, Chris. Deniers like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have been trying to discredit global warming for years, but are losing member companies like Apple and Exelon who understand the issue and the need for the United States to take action. These people and groups will be overtaken by events and more evidence supporting global warming in the future. However, it may be too late to undo all the damage they inflict in the meantime.
December 2nd, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Wavefunction says:
What I am saying is that we should admit mistakes where mistakes were made. Of course the deniers are going to pounce on these, but as you indicated, they have always been sparing no efforts to malign us; we might as well uphold the highest standards of integrity. In this case this would have meant emphasizing that global warming has not suffered any significant setback, but that at least some of the behavior of the scientists was deplorable (which I think it was).
December 2nd, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Frank says:
Chris Mooney’s blog title was not an optimum choice: ["Not so Swift, Hackers: Why the scandal sometimes called “ClimateGate” is overblown"].

The title suggests a partisan message that the leaked emails are not a big deal; it offers a clever allusion to “swiftboating”, i.e. hinting that the affair is part of a devious campaign by deniers.

This is colorful political campaigning style. While it appeals to partisans, to me it undermines the credibility of Chris’s message, which, separated from the title, I found informative and quite nuanced. Sure, it had a point of view but not so strong that it did violence to the facts.

Potential negative effects of the title include 1) creating skepticism about contents of the blog in people who are not already in Chris’s choir 2) mixing science policy (in the broader sense) with advocacy, and 3) tending to create the impression to browsers that the Center for America Progress website is an overtly partisan political site.

Among the stated objectives of the Center and its website is that it be nonpartisan, and that it seeks “to provide a forum to discuss the science and technology policy – not to advance the interests of any particular political party or candidate.” That is sound policy. Besides IRS issues, there are endless opinion and partisan sites but only a few with the content to help achieve useful policies and perspectives.

While the Chris’s post not refer to political candidates, its title clearly has the “look and feel” of political advocacy regarding party interests.

Let’s look at an alternative approachs.

["Hacked emails and 'Climategate': why private errors should not obscure the larger issues".]

I argue that acknowledging reality in the title invites more credence than a title dominated by defensiveness and advocacy.

The alternative title retains “hacked emails” which implies that those who revealed the messages used unethical means. Its reference to “private errors” gains credibility by acknowledging individuals’ poor judgment (especially for persons in highly visible or responsible roles)but separating them from the larger issues.

I regard Chris as a talent. He’s bashed Republicans in his book. But I argue that he could use his knowledge and talents to best effect by shedding light rather than heat on key problems. Maintaining partisan hostility accentuates antagonisms that distract attention from “science and technology policy”.
December 3rd, 2009 at 1:15 am
Nick Baldwin says:
Good work Chris, the only problem is you are probably preaching to the choir. The nay sayers will only believe what they, in their twisted minds, want to believe and real science-subject to testing and retesting and further verification over time, is too boring and hard for them to understand. They want a sound bite they can wave in front of all the conservatives like Mr. Limbaugh or Mrs.Palin and get mileage from immediately. With them it has nothing to do with truth or reason only emotions and reaction.
keep up the great reporting.
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:37 am
jay says:
“deniers”
Yes, you guys are preaching to the choir, convincing no one in your echo chamber, as long as you use the word synonymous with genocide.
Tell me.. are you really interested in solutions, or just enjoying calling anyone who differs with you evil?
AGW might have more widespread acceptance if it werent for its kooky, condescending adherents.
December 3rd, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Karl says:
So jay, are you basically saying that if the scientific community stops calling you names (as you perceive it) you’ll accept the facts and theory supporting AGW? That doesn’t seem very scientific on your part.
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:43 pm
zac says:
Can anyone imagine reading the private letters of Newton, Maxwell, Einstein or Feinman and finding anything about deleting raw data, “hiding declines” through tricks, or engaging in the career sabotage by preventing the publication of rival peers?

Of course not.

By defending the actions of the people in the CRU, you are basically showing the skeptics and the world that you are a partisan that care not a wit about the scientific method.
December 4th, 2009 at 2:31 am
KAP says:
Geez, Jay. Implying ‘deniers’ is used as synonymous to ‘genocide’? (At least you could have said ‘genociders’) Get a grip. I’m no scientist, so I won’t hesitate to mock you if it’s warranted. I don’t have to maintain that stoic image.

I also don’t have the time, resources, or skill set to wade through all of the climate data that’s out there. Within limits, I trust the consensus that’s reached after all of the squabbling and peer review. That’s what I try to read, leavened by a dose of your darling deniers just to watch for shenanigans. I’m really, really irritated by those emails, the people who wrote them and the intellectually dishonest people who try to make them something they are not. Mostly it’s the people who wrote them. How disappointing.

Still, zac, Jones fell on his sword in honorable fashion. What more do you want? Genocide?

Show of hands. How many people have gotten by the excerpts used to prove this or that point and actually read the originals?
December 4th, 2009 at 5:13 am
Jim says:
You pseudo intellectual types never cease to amaze me. The FACT is people tend to be most true and realistic when they perceive they are safe. These criminals were caught red handed in a moment of stupidity, believing email was safe. What they said in these emails was very damning to true science/scientist. I learned in grade school that it only takes ONE premise to disprove a theory; you can have a million in support…but just one will disprove the entire hypothosis. Man has not accelerated the warming of the climate…I see a bunch of “scientists” that have manipulated data and sold out to the not so mighty dollar! I’m embarrassed by and for all of you ignorant “smart guys” who could believe science FICTION has now become reality. Mankind cannot have a significant impact on the temperature of the planet…there is NO evidence, Real Evidence, to prove otherwise. You want us to further damage the economy and weaken business…just so these so-called scientists can keep getting their grant money. I think our money would be better spent correcting the text books that devoted chapters to global warming, as if it were proven theories.
December 4th, 2009 at 11:35 am
chris says:
kap. Which consensus are you taking about?
The one which science deniers like Jones/Mann and politicians are trying to push on people,with the aim to establish their global gouvernance.
Or the one of the 32000 scientists of NIPCC
(see http://www.nipccreport.org/).
December 4th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
ScruffyDan says:
“the willingness of climate skeptics to do this has always been, and will remain, the real scandal.”

Which is why I refuse to call the skeptics
December 5th, 2009 at 4:38 am
ScruffyDan says:
@ Chris 9:39

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-11-12#feature
http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2008/07/petitioning-on-climate-part-1.html
http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2008/07/petitioning-on-climate-part-2.html

That petition is pointless.
December 5th, 2009 at 4:42 am
KAP says:
Ah, you lose me when you speak in absolutes like “Mankind cannot have a significant impact on the temperature of the planet”. I don’t trust anyone who does that. Personally, right now I go with “appears to have a significant impact”. I guess we disagree.

Read the emails.

Or go to the movies. JFK has a grand conspiracy theory; 2012 can give you certainty.
December 5th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Nate says:
As a human caused GW skeptic, using words like deniers is not going to help you with the public. Whether or not you believe denier is an accurate statement, it does not widen your support, establishes battlelines, and strengthens the public preception that ClimateGate is true.

Science has made huge mistakes in the past. Scientists use to speculate how certain long volcano eruptions occurred in ancient times. One, they said, probably went on for year according to the evidence they had uncovered. That is until Mount St. Helens blew. Then they realized that eruptions could move huge amounts of materials in days not in years.

If human caused global warming proponents want to win their argument, then they have to stick to that argument and it alone. The HCGW argument is being used for every ecological issue that come along, sound or not.

The problem will be that if the human factor is found to be minor, as some and more are suggesting, then all those who claimed the human factor significant will be discredited. Worse, considering the impact of the plans on the poor and middle-classes around the world, they will be the historical footnotes of foolish scientists of this century.

From the skeptic view, the problem with the CRU is that we do not know how much of the theory planetary dynamics fudged. Since the CRU had sway with the UN groups, we do not know how much of the contaminated theory may have worked its way into other scientists data.

The proponents are using reasonable scientific means to extract data they do not have records for. Still indirect measurements leave a lot to be desired. Certainly using multiple methods to confirm individual components lessens the impact of erroneous theories, the huge holes that exist in the record of Earth could mean that scientists have it all wrong. After all in 1975 scientists were talking the coming Ice Age.

There are good reasons to be a skeptic. Only elitists call skeptics “deniers.”
December 9th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Jack says:
Nate:

Just because a couple of people were saying that the world might be going into an new ice age is not the same thing as thousands of scientists saying we are in the midst of global climate change.

I don’t now why people who disagree with the idea of global climate change have to repeat such nonsensical statements in an effort to support their positions. Just like the claim I frequently see that there has been no warming in this decade when almost every year has ended up being one of the 10 warmest years since temperatures began to be recorded.

All doing so does is demonstrate to the world that the person is merely accepting and repeating what someone else has said, they didn’t verify the information, and they really don’t know what they are talking about.
December 9th, 2009 at 9:22 pm