AP on Climategate e-mails

The Associated Press has had five staff go through all 1,073 stolen e-mails. Their conclusion is:

Emails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled sceptics and discussed hiding data – but the messages don’t support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by Associated Press.

I don’t think there was a global conspiracy on climate change, any more than I think there was a conspiracy around the 9/11 attacks.

However enough was revealed in the e-mails, to ring some warning bells that some leading scientists have acted improperly. Some extracts from the lengthy article:

The scientists were so convinced by their own science and so driven by a cause “that unless you’re with them, you’re against them”, said Mark Frankel, director of scientific freedom, responsibility and law at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He also reviewed the communications.

Frankel saw “no evidence of falsification or fabrication of data, although concerns could be raised about some instances of very ‘generous interpretations’.”

My worry is that there is now a mindset where only data that fits the thesis is considered.

One of the most disturbing elements suggests an effort to avoid sharing scientific data with critics sceptical of global warming. It is not clear if any data were destroyed; two United States researchers denied it. The emails show that several mainstream scientists repeatedly suggested keeping their research materials away from opponents who sought it under American and British public records law. It raises a science ethics question because free access to data is important so others can repeat experiments as part of the scientific method. The University of East Anglia is investigating the blocking of information requests.

The issue is not just whether data was destroyed, but also whether one can have any confidence in those scientists who proposed it.

When Climate Research published a sceptical study, Mann discussed retribution this way: “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.”

That brings in a new meaning of peer-reviewed.