President's Column - July 2010 - Climate scientists exonerated again (
Fri, Jul 9 2010

On Wednesday 7 July, the latest in a series of independent reviews examining the science and behaviour of climate scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at University of East Anglia (UEA), the Muir Russell inquiry published its final report (www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf). The inquiry concluded “Climate science is a matter of such global importance, that the highest standards of honesty, rigour and openness are needed in its conduct. On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.” This was not a surprise to those of us who know Dr Phil Jones and his colleagues at CRU. I have known Phil for close to 30 years, and know him to be a man and scientist of the utmost integrity. The Muir Russell inquiry was, in fact, the third independent review into the CRU and its scientists – the other two also cleared the CRU scientists of any wrongdoing. One of these was conducted by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/HC387-IUEAFinalEmbargoedv21.pdf); the other by Lord Oxburgh and an international panel established by UEA in consultation with the Royal Society (www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAP). The Oxburgh panel concluded “We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it.”

On the other side of the Atlantic, Dr Michael Mann (for many years at the University of Virginia and lately at Pennsylvania State University) has also been subjected to three inquiries in recent years, in response to attacks on his science and character. The first, conducted by the National Research Council in 2006, confirmed the conclusions reached by Dr Mann and his colleagues regarding the relative warmth of the late 20th century in comparison with the temperatures of recent centuries. The second inquiry, conducted early this year, concluded “After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data.” (www.research.psu.edu/orp/Findings_Mann_Inquiry.pdf). Nor did he “engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities.” A third inquiry (live.psu.edu/fullimg/userpics/10026/Final_Investigation_Report.pdf) released its report in early July 2010, and again cleared Dr Mann of any wrongdoing.

So, six independent inquiries have now exonerated the behaviour and scientific practices of a small group of distinguished climate scientists, who have been the subject of brutal and unjustified attacks (and campaigns of abusive emails). There can be little doubt that the most recent attacks have been motivated by the continuing strong global warming and record 2009/10 temperatures that I have described in previous monthly letters. The attacks have been “successful” in that they have distracted excellent and honest scientists from their research into climate change, and from communicating the results of their research to the public. Instead Jones and Mann and their colleagues have spent a great deal of time trying to deal with a mountain of Freedom of Information demands (often for data available elsewhere on the internet), preparing submissions to the various inquiries, and appearing before these inquiries.

One might think that the unanimity of the six inquiries in exonerating the scientists and confirming their science might be the end of the matter, and that our valued colleagues might be left to resume their excellent scientific careers. However, while global warming continues, I am sure there will continue to be well-organised attempts to distract the scientists, the media, the pubic, and politicians, from the reality of this warming (and from the human role in causing it).

Certainly some powerful people have no intention of letting Mike Mann focus on his research. The Attorney General of Virginia has insisted that the University of Virginia provide him all of Mann’s correspondence “created, presented or made in connection with” five research projects (worth about $500,000 in total). And the Attorney General really does mean “all”! He demands “the original and any copies of any written, printed, typed, electronic or graphic matter of any kind or nature, however produced or reproduced, and book, pamphlet, brochure, periodical, newsletter, letter, correspondence, memoranda, notice, facsimile, e-mail, manual, press release, telegram, report, study, handwritten note, working paper, chart, paper, graph, index, tape, data sheet, data processing card, or any other written, recorded, transcribed, punched, taped, filmed or graphic matter”. The Attorney General also demands “all” documents “that constitute or that are in any way related to correspondence, messages or e-mails” between Mann and 39 specified scientists (or that “reference” any of the 39). All correspondence between Mann and any research assistants, secretaries or administrative staff with whom Mann worked, or that “reference” these staff, are also demanded. These demands are clearly a desperate search for anything that might conceivably be used to discredit Mann and his work.

This tactic has been used in the past. From the mid-1990s Dr Ben Santer, at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, was harassed in the same way, with demands for all his correspondence and papers relating to his scientific work on climate change detection. This was simply because Santer, amongst others, had demonstrated that anthropogenic factors were contributing to the warming of our planet.

Over more than 15 years I have watched the good grace and resolve with which Santer, Mann and Jones have responded to these baseless and brutal (and ultimately futile) attempts to intimidate them and to try to find something, anything, which might conceivably be used to discredit them or their work. Their refusal to be intimidated, and their ability to continue their excellent research in the face of this intimidation is testament to their strength of character. They truly are heroes of our times, and provide an inspiration for young scientists in all fields. I am sure future generations will see them as such.