Jones steps down as head of climate unit

Updated 12/2/2009: Phil Jones , the director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU)—that was hacked into a couple of weeks ago and had private correspondences of researchers published on the internet—announced that he is to step aside as CRU head until an internal investigation is completed.

In a statement on the university’s web site , Jones said:

Vice-Chancellor Edward Acton said:

Controversy over the e-mails have been brewing for days in the run up to the UN Copenhagen negotiations over a new climate treaty, with climate deniers and skeptics using the e-mails to argue that the science shows that climate change is not occurring. They also argue that climate researchers are not making available their data to the public.

Specifically the claims are:

That climate scientists used the peer review process to discredit opposing views.

That they manipulated data to make recent temperature trends look anomalous.

They withheld and destroyed data they should have released as good scientific practice.

Peer Review

The claims that the e-mails indicate an attempt to use the peer review process to discredit skeptics refers to comments made by Penn State University climate scientist Michael Mann who says in one e-mail “I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.”

Mann is referring to the impact a controversial paper by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas that was published in Climate Research on historic temperature trends had on the climate debate. The paper—which the Bush administration tried to use to justify editing a Environmental Protection Agency report so that it no longer acknowledged the scientific community’s consensus about climate change—was widely criticized for inaccuracy and led to the resignation of several editors at the journal.

The topic came up at a hearing of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming today. Ranking minority member James Sensenbrenner (R–WI) criticized US president science adviser John Holdren for writing in a 2003 e-mail that Soon and Baliunas were “amateurs” at interpreting climate data and said that their findings are “flawed,” and asked how could Holdren be objective on this topic.

Holdren said his view was developed by careful analysis, and his only “bias” was that he had read the Soon and Baliunas paper and found its findings wanting.

Rep. John Sullivan (R–OK) asked Holdren if he thought that improper “manipulation” of science would warrant a Congressional investigation. Holdren said that it would be better for the scientific community to use peer review and its existing process to investigate the legitimacy of facts.

E-mail Fallout

“The publication of a selection of the e-mails and data stolen from the CRU has led to some questioning of the climate science research published by CRU and others,” says Trevor Davies, the University’s Pro-Vice-Chancellor. “There is nothing in the stolen material which indicates that peer-reviewed publications by CRU, and others, on the nature of global warming and related climate change are not of the highest-quality of scientific investigation and interpretation.”

“CRU’s peer-reviewed publications are consistent with, and have contributed to, the overwhelming scientific consensus that the climate is being strongly influenced by human activity,” he adds.

Jones also issued a statement stating that, “My colleagues and I accept that some of the published e-mails do not read well. I regret any upset or confusion caused as a result. Some were clearly written in the heat of the moment, others use colloquialisms frequently used between close colleagues... We are, and have always been, scrupulous in ensuring that our science publications are robust and honest.”

Other researchers who have commented on the e-mails at places such as http://wwww.realclimate.org point out that the most damaging e-mails have been taken out of context or use language that can be misinterpreted by readers outside of the field.

For example, one e-mail refers to using a “trick” and “hiding the decline” in a paper that added recent instrumental data to the end of temperature reconstructions that included tree ring measurements.

Says Jones, “One of the three temperature reconstructions was based entirely on a particular set of tree-ring data that shows a strong correlation with temperature from the 19th century through to the mid-20th century, but does not show a realistic trend of temperature after 1960. This is well known and is called the ‘decline’ or ‘divergence’. The use of the term ‘hiding the decline’ was in an e-mail written in haste. CRU has not sought to hide the decline. Indeed, CRU has published a number of articles that both illustrate, and discuss the implications of, this recent tree-ring decline.”

“The ‘decline’ in this set of tree-ring data should not be taken to mean that there is any problem with the instrumental temperature data. As for the tree-ring decline, various manifestations of this phenomenon have been discussed by numerous authors, and its implications are clearly signposted in Chapter 6 of the IPCC AR4 report .”

Keith Seitter, executive director of the American Meteorological Society said that the society had been dealing with queries regarding the CRU e-mails, and whether it would impact the AMS statement on climate change.

Seitter said that the statement was drawn up on “robust” peer-reviewed literature and “followed a rigorous procedure that included drafting and review by experts in the field, comments by the membership, and careful review by the AMS Council prior to approval as a statement of the Society.”

Publicly available

The CRU has stated that over 95% of the CRU climate data set concerning land surface temperatures has been accessible to climate researchers, skeptics and the public for several years.

“It is well known within the scientific community and particularly those who are skeptical of climate change that the raw station data has been accessible through the Global Historical Climatology Network ,” says Davies.

The remaining data requires CRU’s partners from around the globe to release CRU from non-publication agreements before it can be made public.

“CRU’s full data will be published in the interests of research transparency when we have the necessary agreements. It is worth reiterating that our conclusions correlate well to those of other scientists based on the separate data sets held by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS),” says Davies.

Unhappy scientists

Climate scientists have faced a long campaign both in the UK and the US against the conclusions of their research that the Earth is getting warmer.

The publication of a selection of stolen e-mails “is the latest example of a sustained and, in some instances, a vexatious campaign” says Davies, designed to distract government officials from reasoned debate to develop the international agreements required to mitigate, and adapt to, climate change.

Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, who does not believe man-made climate change is occurring, is already trying to get the e-mails and scientists investigated by US Senate committee on environment and public works .

Jones states, “In the frenzy of the past few days, the most vital issue is being overshadowed: we face enormous challenges ahead if we are to continue to live on this planet.”

“That the world is warming is based on a range of sources,” he says. “Not only temperature records but other indicators such as sea level rise, glacier retreat and less Arctic sea ice.... The facts speak for themselves ; there is no need for anyone to manipulate them.”

Paul Guinnessy

Related Links Climatologists under pressure Nature

Hacker leaks thousands of climate change e-mails NPR

What East Anglia’s e-mails really tell us about climate change Popular Mechanics

Leaked e-mail climate smear was a PR disaster for UEA The Guardian

John Holdren’s testimony before the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming Hacked e-mail data prompts calls for changes in climate research New York Times