IS CLIMATEGATE finally over? It ought to be, with the publication of the third UK report into the emails leaked from the University of East Anglia鈥檚 Climatic Research Unit (CRU). Incredibly, none looked at the quality of the science itself.
The MPs鈥� inquiry 鈥� rushed out before the UK general election on 6 May 鈥� ducked the science because the university said it was setting up an 鈥渋ndependent scientific assessment panel鈥� chaired by geologist Ron Oxburgh.
After publishing his five-page epistle, Oxburgh declared 鈥渢he science was not the subject of our study鈥�. Finally, last week came former civil servant Muir Russell鈥檚 150-page report. Like the others, he lambasted the CRU for its secrecy but upheld its integrity 鈥� despite declaring his study 鈥渨as not about鈥� the content or quality of [CRU鈥檚] scientific work鈥� (see 鈥溞影稍磗 respond to Muir Russell report鈥�).
Advertisement
Though the case for action to cut greenhouse gases remains strong, this omission matters. How can we know whether CRU researchers were properly exercising their judgment? Without dipping his toes into the science, how could Russell tell whether they were misusing their power as peer reviewers to reject papers critical of their own research, or keep sceptical research out of reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?
Russell鈥檚 report was much tougher on data secrecy, finding a 鈥渃onsistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness鈥�. Key data on matters of public importance 鈥� like CRU鈥檚 assembly of 160 years of global thermometer data 鈥� cannot be regarded as private property. Even so, he ought to have joined Oxburgh in calling for greater documentation of the 鈥渏udgmental decisions鈥� that turned raw data into the graphs of global average temperatures. Data manipulation is the stuff of science, but that manipulation has to be as open and transparent as the data itself.
鈥淕lobal thermometer data going back 160 years cannot be regarded as private property鈥�
Russell鈥檚 team left other stones unturned. They decided against detailed analysis of all the emails in the public domain. They examined just three instances of possible abuse of peer review, and just two cases when CRU researchers may have abused their roles as authors of IPCC reports. There were others. They have not studied hundreds of thousands more unpublished emails from the CRU. Surely openness would require their release.
All this, plus the failure to investigate whether emails were deleted to prevent their release under freedom of information laws, makes it harder to accept Russell鈥檚 conclusion that the 鈥渞igour and honesty鈥� of the scientists concerned 鈥渁re not in doubt鈥�.
Some will argue it is time to leave climategate behind. But it is difficult to justify the conclusion of Edward Acton, University of East Anglia vice-chancellor, that the CRU has been 鈥渃ompletely exonerated鈥�. Openness in sharing data, even with your critics, is a legal requirement.
But what happened to intellectual candour 鈥� especially in conceding the shortcomings of these inquiries and discussing the way that science is done. Without candour, public trust in climate science cannot be restored, nor should it be.