Climategate and the exclusionary principle

A new paper by Garud et al (Social Studies of Science, forthcoming) reviews Climategate and analyses some of the sociology involved. The authors conclude that while climatologists - or at least the Hockey Team - were seeking to protect the space in which they operated, their actions actually led to the destabilisation of that space.

In the case of climate science, as concerns multiplied, the approach taken was one of exclusion, which in hindsight appears to be puzzling given that the post-Climategate investigations failed to find evidence of ‘scientific misconduct’ or fraud. In other words, despite having nothing to hide, those involved employed numerous exclusionary tactics, which later misfired.

Click to read more ...

US reaction to Climategate

Most readers will know from Watts Up With That? that Chris Horner has obtained a substantial quantity of emails from NOAA. Of particular interest are the ones relating to the immediate aftermath of Climategate - they can be seen below.

Of particular interest is the role of the White House in coordinating the US reaction.

All communications on this issue are being coordinated with the White House. Therefore no communications with Hill or Press should go out without [Department of Commerce] coordinating with [White House].

The release also includes emails from Myles Allen and Emily Shuckburgh regarding the open letter from climate scientists that was widely publicised after Climategate.

NOAA re CG

Wallis and the Today programme

At the suggestion of the Information Commissioner, UEA have unredacted part of the release they made last month of correspondence with the Outside Organisation. We now learn that Outside were involved in pressuring the BBC to change its story on the Climategate affair (click for full size).

This appears to relate to a correction that the Today programme issued in July 2010 - see here. I'm not sure what Roger Harrabin's involvement was.

Muller still not impressed by Climategate

Richard Muller, who has been in much demand in recent days, because of his alleged conversion to the global warming mainstream, is going to get a whole lot more attention after his latest comments on Climategate (H/T Tom Nelson). Muller's comments come from an interview at the Brad Blog, reported here.

But the interview's friendly climate changed and really began to heat up when I asked Muller if his findings finally put to rest the far Right's claim that the cockamamie (and debunked-many times-over) "Climategate" affair "proved" that climate scientists linked to the pseudo-scandal were fudging their global warming data.

Incredibly, Muller asserted that "Climategate" was not a settled issue, and that the scientists involved were found to have "hidden" data. (He also asserted, without evidence to support it, that the "controversial" e-mails at the center of the pseudo-scandal were intentionally "leaked by a member of the team," rather than hacked. He claims that "most people" believe that to be the case, though he was unable or unwilling to back up that element of his charge either.) I pointed out that eight different investigations all found that no data manipulation took place; he asserted that temperature data had been "hidden", not manipulated. When I asked if "hiding" data was not a form of manipulation, he gave a muddled non-answer (though he made sure to get in some particularly nasty, and seemingly personal, shots at acclaimed Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann).

Rosenberg then addressed America's recently-shattered temperature records, wildfires and unrelenting drought, asking Muller if there was a clear link between these extreme weather events and climate change; Muller, again, curiously downplayed any connection, ultimately suggesting that the drought wasn't that much different from the 1930s Dust Bowl.
...
Even as Muller's own scientific findings continue to come closer and closer to Mann's long-standing and well-documented assertions, there is clearly no love lost between the two men, as evidenced by the shots Muller took at Mann during our interview.

In addition, as Tom Nelson notes, there is this comment about the CRU scientists:

What they did was, I think shameful, and it was scientific malpractice.  If they were licensed scientists, they should have to lose their license.  What they did is they held back the discordant data...if they had done this at Berkeley or Stanford, I think, they would have been shamed.  The standards that they have over there at the University of East Anglia are just not up to what we consider standard scientific methods.  When you withhold data that is discordant, and they refused to release it until it came out in this leak...<

Climategate police investigation - the closure report

Leo Hickman has posted a link to Norfolk Constabulary's official closure report on the Climategate investigation. I don't see anything important in it, but interesting all the same.

A trickle of further information

My request for copies of UEA's correspondence with the Outside Organisation has been discussed here previously. While UEA have released a certain amount of correspondence, they have withheld parts of it, citing all manner of exemptions.

My appeal to the Information Commissioner has now had some effect, with UEA agreeing to release further documents, although there is still more that they are refusing to divulge. The disclosures can be seen in three PDF files, annexes 1, 2 and 4. I'm not sure what happened to Annex 3.

The contents are not of devastating interest, although there are a few redactions that are intriguing, in particular one in the middle of a paragraph discussing my submission to the SciTech inquiry.

Andrew Montford (Bishop Hill) submission states:

12 The disclosures reveal several instances of government funded scientists working with environmental pressure groups. In one case, Greenpeace activists are seen helping CRU scientists to draft a letter to the Times and in another working closely with the World Wildlife Fund to put pressure on governments regarding climate change.

RedactionRedactionRedaction

Montford's will be one of the submissions they are likely to pay attention to.

Interview with Julian Gregory

Leo Hickman has published the transcript of his interview with DCS Julian Gregory, the policeman who led the investigation into Climategate. There is much of interest, not least this bit about what led the police to believe that nobody internal was involved.

Norfolk Police gave a press conference yesterday in which it revealed some more details about the investigation. For example, DCS Gregory said that the hacker(s) had, whilst accessing the university's servers remotely via the internet, breached several passwords in order to gain access to the emails and other documents. He also said that officers had examined CCTV footage at CRU to investigate the possibility – subsequently ruled out - that a member of staff might have been involved.

This, I have to say, brought a smile to my face.

There was also this reference to Mosher:

Have you kept on top of all the internet speculation and commentary surrounding this case?

Firstly, you can't investigate what's said online. Secondly, you look at those blogs and most of it is speculative, uninformed and, occasionally, ridiculous.

But did you keep an eye on it in case someone came up with a possible lead or sensible theory, or did you see it as nonsense and a distraction?

The latter. I think it was Steven Mosher who said he knew who it was, or had a theory, at least. Maybe he does. Maybe he doesn't. Where does that take you? And is he likely to tell the police? The difference between the police and, say, journalists, is that we won't embark on a number of lines of enquiry because, ultimately, you can see that in terms of getting to where we need to get to - which is beyond reasonable doubt - it's not going to get you there. The fact that things are "interesting" is not always enough.

If I'm reading this correctly, the police didn't even ask Mosher about his ideas. Given that he has written a book about Climategate, this is rather surprising. I would have thought it was worth the effort of an email.

Operation Cabin Q&As

Norfolk Constabulary have published the Q&A from their press conference yesterday (H/T Anthony).

The following questions and answers are an abridged version of Norfolk Constabulary’s Operation Cabin media briefing held on Thursday 19 July 2012.

How do you know it was an external hack?

In outline terms, we know it came via the internet from a number of different IP addresses, in various countries, which may have been proxy servers. The attack was, first of all, into the web server (CRUweb8) in the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the UEA. From there, a link was established to a CRU back-up server (CRUback3).

Click to read more ...

More from Norfolk Constabulary

This is a briefing document that was issued to journalists at a press conference earlier today. It contains background information on the Climategate inquiry and the decision to close it down.

Operation Cabin

Background Information

Introduction

Operation Cabin is the name of Norfolk Constabulary’s investigation into the unauthorised data breach at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich and the subsequent publication of some of this data on the internet.

The publication of the data in close proximity to the COP 15 and COP17 climate change conferences in Copenhagen and Durban appears to have been done in order to influence global debate around anthropogenic climate change.

Click to read more ...

Climategate police inquiry closes

This just in from Norfolk Constabulary (H/T Leo H)

Norfolk Constabulary has made the decision to formally close its investigation into the hacking of online data from the Climate Research Centre (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich.

The decision follows a comprehensive investigation by the force’s Major Investigation Team, supported by a number of national specialist services, and is informed by a statutory deadline on criminal proceedings.

While no criminal proceedings will be instigated, the investigation has concluded that the data breach was the result of a ‘sophisticated and carefully orchestrated attack on the CRU’s data files, carried out remotely via the internet’.

Senior Investigating Officer, Detective Chief Superintendant Julian Gregory, said: “Despite detailed and comprehensive enquiries, supported by experts in this field, the complex nature of this investigation means that we do not have a realistic prospect of identifying the offender or offenders and launching criminal proceedings within the time constraints imposed by law.

“The international dimension of investigating the World Wide Web especially has proved extremely challenging.

“However, as a result of our enquiries, we can say that the data breach was the result of a sophisticated and carefully orchestrated attack on the CRU’s data files, carried out remotely via the internet. The offenders used methods common in unlawful internet activity to obstruct enquiries.

“There is no evidence to suggest that anyone working at or associated with the University of East Anglia was involved in the crime.”

The security breach was reported to Norfolk Constabulary on 20 November 2009, following publication of CRU data on the internet from 17 November onwards.

An investigation was launched by the joint Norfolk and Suffolk Major Investigation Team, led by Det Chief Supt Gregory, with some support from the The Met’s Counter Terrorism Command, the National Domestic Extremism Team and the Police Central e-crime Unit, along with consultants in online security and investigation.

The investigation, code-named Operation Cabin, focused on unauthorised access to computer material, an offence under the Computer Misuse Act 1990, which has a three year limit on proceedings from the commission of the original offence. It has been concluded by Norfolk Constabulary, in consultation with The Met, that due to outstanding enquiries this is now an unrealistic prospect.

Norfolk Assistant Chief Constable Charlie Hall, Protective Services lead, said: “Online crime is a global issue. While law enforcement agencies continue to develop our response to emerging threats, it falls upon individuals and organisations to be alert to this and and take steps to mitigate risk as far as is practicable.”

On the accountability of universities

Rand Simberg looks at the aftermath of the Sandusky affair at Penn State University and considers what it means for public perceptions of the investigation of Michael Mann.

Michael Mann, like Joe Paterno (and to a lesser degree, Jerry Sandusky) was a rock star in the context of Penn State University, bringing in millions in research funding. The same university president who resigned in the wake of the Sandusky scandal was also the president when Mann was being whitewashed investigated. We saw what the university administration was willing to do to cover up heinous crimes, and even let them continue, rather than expose them. Should we suppose, in light of what we now know, they would do any less to hide academic and scientific misconduct, with so much at stake?

It’s time for a fresh, truly independent investigation.

I'm not sure why Simberg has used strikethrough style on the word "whitewashed". That the Climategate "inquiries" were devoid of any integrity is beyond question.

Simberg's hope for a meaningful inquiry will undoubtedly turn out to be forlorn. Universities do not investigate their own. They are accountable to nobody and, as Edward Acton showed during the CRU investigations, the vice-chancellors can thumb their noses at politicians with complete impunity.

The question is, why then should the public pay for them?

Giving FOI officers a break

Among my email correspondence relating to the Climategate affair, there are many expressions of sympathy for David Palmer, the UEA Freedom of Information officer. Although his involvement in the various false statements issued by the university cannot be determined with certainty, one did rather get the impression that he was struggling valiantly to comply with the legislation.

This cannot have been an easy task. A blog posting (here) by Paul Gibbons, an FOI officer in local government, reveals some of the pressures that senior officials in public bodies use to try to corrupt their FOI staff:

FOI Officers often find themselves in tricky situations. I’ve referred previously to a meeting on one occasion where the Mayor of London’s then Director of Communications once lightly suggested that if I couldn’t be more helpful, I and my team might find ourselves redundant. Wiser heads calmed the situation but I suspect I’m not the only FOI Officer to find themselves on the wrong side of an argument with the powers-that-be. Other FOI Officers I know have been persona non grata in parts of their organisation. And all for doing their jobs.

As Gibbons says, requesters should give FOI officers a break.

UK science journos talk "false balance"

The UK Conference of Science Journalists are discussing "false balance" in science reporting today, their session on the subject featuring Professor Steve Jones, whose report on the BBC's science coverage and whose shoddy behaviour along the way have been noted here from time to time.

From the tweets so far, it seems that some of Jones' talk has not been taken very seriously:

Ed Yong ‏@edyong209

I may die of laughter. RT @llantwit: #ukcsj Steve Jones: scientists tend to agree on most things...

On the other hand, Felicity Mellor has repeated her suggestion that science reporting needs more dissenting voices, not fewer.

Frank Nuijens ‏@FrankNu

Underuse of balance in BBC reporting, says Felicity Mellor. Little room for critical voices in science reports. #ukcsj

Click to read more ...

British science journalists on Climategate

Tomorrow the Association of British Science Writers begin their annual conference in London. Browsing idly to see what they were up to, I chanced upon a podcast of a session of their first conference in 2010, in which they discussed Climategate.

It really is amazing stuff. Here's a brief summary of what was said

Bob Watson

• Seems under the impression that Climategate was about CRUTEM
• Says inquiries reported that there was no perversion of peer review, no perversion of IPCC process, no scientific wrongdoing
• Uses the d-word

Click to read more ...

Boulton says free the data

The Geoffrey Boulton's Royal Society report on Science as an Open Enterprise is published today. The headline findings are, unsurprisingly, that science should be more open with its data:

• Scientists need to be more open among themselves and with the public and media
• Greater recognition needs to be given to the value of data gathering, analysis and communication
• Common standards for sharing information are required to make it widely usable
• Publishing data in a reusable form to support findings must be mandatory
• More experts in managing and supporting the use of digital data are required
• New software tools need to be developed to analyse the growing amount of data being gathered.

Click to read more ...