Nov 23, 2009

CRU emails reveal a worrying pattern of bad behaviour

Leaked email exchanges between climate scientists stolen from the University of East Anglia are causing a rather juicy online scandal, writes Sinclair Davidson.

Sometime last week the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia was hacked and materials stolen off its server. That information, including thousands of emails, has been posted on the internet (including at Wikileaks) and has caused a weekend of frantic blogging. There is more or less a rather juicy scandal brewing. There is more to this story than the "ho hum, nothing to see here, the making of sausages, and science, shouldn’t be seen by the public" attitude being displayed by warmenists. There is, however, less to the story than the "this proves the greatest scientific fraud in human history" attitude being taken by denialists. So far, there is no evidence I have seen that suggests the fabrication of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. Certainly, scientists at the CRU are not the only scientists working on climate science. These emails do not provide a silver bullet to kill off that theory. Much has been made of an email by Professor Phil Jones, head of the CRU, where he says: "I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline." The word "trick" doesn’t suggest anything untoward, rather being somewhat clever about some technique. "Hide" could be a problem. This email is dated November 16, 1999, so it cannot relate to more recent arguments over the extent of global warming. It is clear, however, that statements suggesting "the science is settled" can no longer be sustained. In an email from Mike Kelly to Phil Jones (dated October 26, 2008), we find this gem, "I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.” While on July 5, 2005, Phil Jones wrote: "The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant." It is possible that plausible explanations can and will be made to explain these sorts of statements. At the same time the emails do provide evidence of attempts to subvert the peer-review process, refusal to make data available to journals, attempts to manipulate the editorial stance of journals, attempts to avoid releasing data following FOI requests, tax evasion, rejoicing at the deaths of opponents, manipulation of results, apparent misappropriation of grant money, and threats to physically assault rivals. This is not a good look at all. Some of this behaviour is bad form, some of it unethical, and some of it potentially illegal. The destruction of data subject to a freedom-of-information request is illegal. The CRU has argued that a lot of their early raw data was destroyed because they couldn’t store it. That explanation is, unfortunately, all too plausible. We live in a world where as recently as 20 years ago, data would have been thrown away for want of storage space. These irreplaceable and valuable historical documents are likely to have been tossed. Why then find a 2005 email from Phil Jones: "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone"? If this is a global Godwin Grech moment and the incriminating emails have been seeded with misinformation, then they are in the clear. Since the scandal has broken that argument is yet to be made. Indeed, several individuals have confirmed the authenticity of emails and condemned the invasion of their privacy. This incident reflects poorly on academics and universities everywhere. It is important to remember that the taxpaying public invests a lot of trust and respect in academic processes; not to mention, money. The peer-review process, for example, has been held up as the "gold standard" of integrity. Yet we see numerous emails subverting peer-review. We see attempts to avoid freedom-of-information requests -- something the media and the public are increasingly impatient about. We see overall a pattern of poor behaviour. Some have chosen to represent that behaviour as the workings of elite scientists going about their business. I am not convinced that the public, whose taxes finance that behaviour, are going to be pleased. Nor should they be. Sinclair Davidson is a professor in the School of Economics, Finance and Marketing at RMIT University and a senior fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs.

Free Trial

You've hit members-only content.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

143 thoughts on “CRU emails reveal a worrying pattern of bad behaviour

  1. martypants

    Excellent article Dr Davidson. I agree with the broad concern this raises, the conduct of the entire scientific community is up for debate & at risk. For whatever reasons, the public has come to take for granted the ethical standards & behaviour of our scientists and our leaders.

    I hope this will provide a rude awakening for some of the less cynical.

  2. james mcdonald

    Very good article. Calm, reasoned and balanced. I was one of those saying “premature” at the frenzy as the story broke. The fact that “several individuals have confirmed the authenticity of emails and condemned the invasion of their privacy” means it is now a real news story.

    We can expect it to take several weeks or more likely months to determine what it all actually means.

  3. Daniel

    “This incident reflects poorly on academics and universities everywhere.”

    “Sinclair Davidson is a professor in the School of Economics, Finance and Marketing at RMIT University”

  4. gregb

    “It is clear, however, that statements suggesting “the science is settled” can no longer be sustained.” Wrong. The emails do nothing to counter the claim that the science is settled. There is no evidence anywhere which says that any of the evidence is faked or any admittance that AGW is a sound theory.

    Davidson is from the IPA who sponsor talks by the charlatan Bob Carter. I’ve been to one of his sessions and I can tell you that he is in an out and out deceiver. They should be ashamed to be associated with his brand of “science”. That is the real scandal.

    And by the way. The University of East Anglia (Ok I almost wrote Bumf*ck) only receives a small amount of it’s funding from the government. And anyway, even if it received all its funding from the government that does not justify hacking into its server and publishing private email. Note, Davidson says nothing about the despicable root of this “scandal”. He relishes it, no doubt.

  5. james mcdonald

    Daniel … implying what? I suggest it means the author knows whereof he speaks and wouldn’t say such a thing lightly.

  6. Richard Wilson

    I am pretty sure that 1000+ emails and a whole bunch of papers amounting to ober 140 mb isn’t a Godwin Grech moment. Anyway, nobody reports a hack if there is none; and no one has the right to privacy if they are a terrorist according to our or any other glorious Western government!

  7. Daniel

    “Daniel … implying what? I suggest it means the author knows whereof he speaks and wouldn’t say such a thing lightly.”

    It is just a stupid thing to say. Why do the hacked emails of the CRU at the University of East Anglia reflect poorly on academics and universities that have no connection to the incident or institutions involved? I’m also asking if this recent ‘scandal’ reflects poorly on the author, considering he is an academic, or does the incident only reflect poorly on academics who don’t work for right-wing think-tanks?

  8. CaffeineAddict

    “Davidson is from the IPA…”

    Thank you. Enough Said.

  9. Andrew Triplett

    I notice that there was also alot of data made available also. It will be quite a while before this is examined. There may be a few rounds yet on this one. I still think there are questions to be answered though . From the emails it appears they were not prepared to release data and methodology to people who did not share their point of view . What were they afraid of. Being proved wrong by someone they did not like? This is science right?

    These are not just any scientists, they are key scientists (James Hansen, Michael Mann, Phil Jones etc) – the keepers of the grail- who are responsible for world temperature records and famous graphs such as the hockey stick. They were key advisers on the IPCC reports. Public policy is being currently made based on science, data and advice from them . They are not above scrutiny. I love science and its hypothesising, testing, surprises and at times confusion. There is no straight line to enlightenment, but a little clarity is needed here.

  10. meski

    @Greg & Cafffeine: Yes, let’s shoot the messenger via some ad hominem. Much better than examining the inconvenient data that the emails represent.

Leave a comment

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details