“Climategate” describes a November 2009 scandal in which climate scientists allegedly skewed and deleted data that did not support human-induced global warming.
The controversy began when emails and other documents were hacked from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and subsequently published online. Many declared the emails revealed misconduct within the CRU and a conspiracy in the entire climate science community [11]. Future independent investigations, however, found no evidence of scientific malpractice within the CRU [1,8,9].
In mid-November, 2009, a server belonging to the University of East Anglia’s (UEA) CRU was hacked, and more than 1,000 emails and 3,000 other documents were stolen and leaked to the internet. The UEA confirmed that the information was not on a server that could be easily accessed and therefore could not have been unintentionally released [2]. Among other indictments, climate scientists were primarily accused of manipulating, censoring, and deleting data that did not show a warming trend. Most of the controversy centered on a small number of emails involving the director of UEA’s research unit, Phillip Jones [16].
The alleged Climategate scandal was significant because the accused scientists were influential in many of the claims that man-made emissions were driving global warming. For example, Jones was a contributor in past United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports. Another accused scientist, Kevin Trenberth, was a lead author in many of the IPCC reports. Since the conclusions of these IPCC reports were cited in many government recommendations, Climategate was used as grounds for a review and reanalysis of existing environmental policy in the United States [5].
Climategate was especially damaging as it occurred just a month before the 2009 Copenhagen Conference, an attempt to extend an international climate change treaty. Some speculate that Climategate may have slowed deliberations. As a result of the incident, former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin had even called on the US to boycott the conference entirely [3].
The Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator James Inhofe, declared the scandal would have far-reaching policy implications in the United States, since many policy recommendations and programs relied on the IPCC [1, 5]. In an erroneous February 2010 press release, Inhofe declared that the emails were evidence that the world's leading climate scientists were, among other charges, manipulating data to reach preconceived conclusions [2].
At the request of Inhofe, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) was investigated for some of its email correspondences with the CRU. No evidence of data doctoring or manipulation was found. Similar to other investigations, however, the report did recommend that certain data sets be made more publicly available. Previously, climate scientists had argued that complying with these data requests were too time consuming and diverted resources that could be used in actual research [12].
The hacked emails were widely misinterpreted because individual sentences were often taken out of context [18]. Three of the most commonly cited are listed below.
1. “We can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." --Kevin Trenberth, lead author of the 1995, 2001, and 2007 IPCC Scientific Assessment of Climate Change [10]
Misinterpretation: The evidence for global warming isn’t there. [18]
Fact: The statement stems from the inability to effectively monitor the energy flows associated with short-term climate variability. Trenberth was not referring to the link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and warming, nor was he suggesting that recent temperatures were unusual in the context of short-term natural variability. [6]
2. “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature [a scientific journal] trick of adding in the real temps... for the last 20 years...to hide the decline” -- Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit
Perception: This sentence sounds like climate scientists are deliberately changing the data to suit their needs. [18]
Fact: Tree rings are a tool used by climate scientists to approximate past temperatures. In recent years, recorded global temperatures and the temperatures implied by tree ring data have deviated. For better precision, direct “thermometer” temperature measurements were used to represent the past 20 years instead of temperatures implied by tree ring data. This substitution is the “trick” Jones references [16, 22].
Note: Since tree-ring data is unreliable for the recent past, it questions the ability of tree rings to estimate historic temperatures from hundreds of years ago. However, tree ring temperatures are consistent with other temperature approximation methods. Ice core samples, for example, still show much the same temperature change over the past 1,000 years [16].
3. "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"-- Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit
Perception: A group of scientists that supports anthropogenic global warming is trying to manufacture a consensus by censoring opposing views in IPCC reports.
Fact: The papers referenced by Jones appeared in the final version of the Fourth Assessment Report from the United Nations' IPCC. Jones, however, defended the right of IPCC authors to select which papers are included in the report. He rationalizes that since the IPCC report is an assessment, and not a review, authors should use their expertise to exclude papers that are scientifically weak or irrelevant. [16]
Despite Climategate’s ample publicity, research by Stanford’s Woods Institute for the Environment found that public confidence in climate scientists have remained relatively constant at about 70% [20]. As of 2009, however, only 31% of surveyed individuals agreed that a scientific consensus believed global warming was happening [20].
Several “Climategate” investigations by independent organizations, scientific bodies, and two federal governments concluded that there was no evidence of scientific malpractice.
The 14-member committee's investigation was launched because of its potential “serious implications for UK science." The committee found that the focus on Jones and CRU had been largely misplaced, but it recommended that the climate science community consider becoming more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies [13].
Email correspondences between UEA and NOAA scientists triggered a US federal investigation by the Department of Commerce Inspector General. The Inspector General examined if the NOAA scientists were responsible for improper data manipulation, failure to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures, or failure to comply with public information requests. The report found no reason to suspect faulty data but suggested that NOAA improve responses to data requests [14].
A Science Assessment Panel was set up by UEA in order to “assess the integrity of the research published by the Climatic Research Unit in the light of various external assertions.” The panel’s investigation focused on review of 11 works published by the CRU and evaluation of the integrity of the Unit’s research rather than its correctness. Their report found no “evidence of deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the CRU ... rather [it found] a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers” [15].
They also commented that they were surprised by the fact that “research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians,” and that collaboration between the CRU and a broader scientific community outside of their temperature specialty would be mutually beneficial [15].
A fourth investigation was conducted by the Independent Climate Change Email Review, which was funded by the UEA but was completely independent of the university. It focused on the hacked email exchanges and other information to “determine whether there [was] any evidence of manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice.” The final report cleared the scientists of any dishonest behavior and did not find evidence that undermined IPCC conclusions. The report did, however, find a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness [21].
After the Climategate emails were made public, Pennsylvania State University began to receive a large volume of public complaints against Professor Michael Mann, a university meteorologist associated with the Climategate emails. Mann is noted for his work on reconstructed temperatures over the past 1000 years, best known as the “hockey stick graph” [23]. He was accused of manipulating data, destroying records, and “colluding to hamper the progress of scientific discourse around the issue of anthropogenic global warming” [11].
The university launched its own investigation of Dr. Mann because the accusations could have been construed as research misconduct and a violation of Penn State policy. The Penn State Investigatory Committee, after careful review of its evidence, unanimously determined that there was no substance to the allegations against Dr. Mann [11].
The National Science Foundation (NSF), a US government agency that funds research, was unsatisfied with the Penn State report because the university did not interview any of the experts critical of Michael Mann's research. The NSF believed critics may have additional information that might support the allegations, and therefore, launched a separate investigation.
As a part of the investigation, all reports and documentation the University provided were reviewed, as well as a substantial amount of publicly available documentation concerning both the Professor Mann’s research and parallel research conducted by other scientists in the climate science field. Similar to the other investigations, the NSF found no evidence of research misconduct [9].
1. http://www.pewclimate.org/blog/gulledgej/sixth-independent-investigation-clears-climategate-scientists
2. http://inhofe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=fad156bb-802a-23ad-4222-d9cf2a803680
3. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/01/climategate-phil-jones-uk_n_375670.html
4. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/05/obama-s-shift-copenhagen-visit-defies-climate-gate-controversy/
5. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=a35cf018-802a-23ad-4fc0-e17357878a03
6. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/statement.html
7. "Scotland Yard call in to probe climate data leak from UEA in Norwich", Norwich Evening News, 1 December 2009.
8. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-22/climate-change-scientist-cleared-in-u-s-data-altering-inquiry.html
9. http://www.nsf.gov/oig/search/A09120086.pdf
10. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/KETbrief_bio.html
11. http://live.psu.edu/pdf/Final_Investigation_Report.pdf
12. http://motherjones.com/environment/2011/04/history-of-climategate?page=3
13. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/38702.htm
14. http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110224_climate.html
15. http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAP16
16. http://www.nature.com/climate/2010/1003/full/news.2010.71.html
17. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/climategate-bogus-sceptics-lies
18. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1qa9xprJ4s&feature=player_embedded
19. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11089
20. http://woods.stanford.edu/research/majority-believe-global-warming.html
21. http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf
22. http://motherjones.com/environment/2011/04/history-of-climategate?page=2
23. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=behind-the-hockey-stick
Climatepedia.org is a university student-run program providing a modern and balanced connection point between researchers and the public about climate change.
Copyright © 2011 Climatepedia.org 
