Post on 03-Jan-2016
description
Keith Briffa
Phil Jones
Tim Osborn
Climatic Research Unit staff
Climategate
The allegations – hiding uncertainty
“I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years…to hide the decline.”
The allegations – gatekeeping
“If you think that [journal editor] Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then…we could go through official…channels to get him ousted.”
…must get rid of [editor in chief] von Storch too…
The allegations – deleting data and email
“[McIntyre and McKitrick] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act … I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone.”
“Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re [the IPCC report]? Keith will do likewise…Can you also email Gene [Wahl] and get him to do the same? …We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise. ”
And…
Cherrypicking data
Ad-hoc adjustments to data
Fabrication
Lawson calls for an inquiry
Phil Willis
Hiding the decline: WMO report, 1999
Hiding the decline 1999-2007
Journal bullying
No attempt was made to find out what scientists had said to journal editors
The Saiers affair was not examined
The committee accepted Jones’ word that he had
done nothing wrong.
The report
Committee issued complete “exoneration” of CRU
McIntyre’s evidence barely mentioned
Allegations of fraud and fabrication not examined.
Lord Oxburgh
Biased panel
Biased panel
Trevor Davies (UEA) to Lord Rees (Royal Society):Out of these 13 [candidates] we would hope to get…a range of 'attitudes' towards recent warming… from those who already see it as a problem…to those [who] will come to it with a questioning objectivity
The report
Which papers were looked at?
Controversial paleoclimate papers were not examined
Many papers examined were obscure and had not been criticised
Oxburgh said Royal Society had advised on choice of papers
Who chose the papers?
In fact they were chosen by the university itself
The scope of the inquiry
Doug Keenan
Michael Kelly
Sir Muir Russell
Philip Campbell
Geoffrey Boulton
Perversion of the peer review process
Failure to investigate the allegations
Didn’t find out what scientists had said to journals
Accepted Jones’ word
Hiding the decline
“Misleading”
Were emails deleted?
Russell:
“seen no evidence of any attempt to delete information in respect of a request already made”
Were emails deleted?
“For example Keith Briffa took home emails that were subject to FOI to ensure their safekeeping “
The second parliamentary inquiry
The second parliamentary inquiry
Oxburgh was unaware of Keenan’s fraud allegation
The second parliamentary inquiry
Oxburgh was unaware of Keenan’s fraud allegation
Oxburgh’s team only interviewed CRU scientists for around two hours
The second parliamentary inquiry
Russell didn’t ask if emails had been deleted
The second parliamentary inquiry
Russell didn’t ask if emails had been deleted
Russell admitted no investigation of serious FOI allegations
Climategate 2
5000 new emails published
Climategate 2
5000 new emails published. 200,000 still to come.
Themes of:
Politicisation of scienceHiding uncertainty Media corruptionScientific incompetence
Climategate 2
Peter Thorne (UK Met Office):
“I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.”
Climategate 2
Peter Thorne (UK Met Office):
“I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.”
von Storch:
“..discussion [of a critique] of the hockey stick was unwisely limited by IPCC… (Stupid, politicized action by IPCC, not [Mann et al’s responsibility] “
Climategate 2
Mann:
“I have been talking [with people in the USA] about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre”
...a rattling good detective story and a detailed and brilliant piece of science writing."
Spectator
The Hockey Stick Illusion is one of the best science books in years…This book deserves to win prizes.
Prospect
Andrew Montford tells this detective story in exhilarating style.
Geoscientist
…a code-breaking adventure, an intriguing detective story, an exposé of a scientific and political travesty…
Quadrant