The Atlantic Home

As a scientist, I find it very important (though difficult) to separate politics and science. This whole Climategate fiasco has made this task increasingly difficult.

Before these emails, I thought anthropomorphic global warming (AGW) was a done deal. I thought this because an overwhelming body of PEER REVIEWED SCIENCE SUPPORTED AGW, and was even summed up nicely in the report from the IPCC.

Then these emails were released and prompted scientists to take a second look at the science. Here is what we find:

1. Secrecy.

The CRU, which housed much of the data and many of the models used in the IPCC report, rejected any request by scientists outside their organization to see the raw data. This is illegal, as there is a Freedom of Information Act in the UK, but these "scientists" claimed that because their work was commissioned the UN, they did not have to abide by the FOIA. As a scientist, this a huge RED FLAG!

This is illegal, unscientific and it reeks off conflicts of interest and corruption. It is also important to delineate that these emails have nothing to do with the truth of this matter, they were merely the catalyst that allowed this ongoing policy of secrecy to precipitate in the media.

2. Cronyism.

The CRU emails, if even partially authentic, certainly suggest a great deal of bullying by these scientists against colleagues who were publicly skeptical and journals which published their papers. This is also highly unscientific. Whenever fellow scientist question your work, it should prompt you to do more and better science to demonstrate the strength of your hypothesis, not get together with your friends and use your reputations as leverage to bully them out of the "scientific" discussion.

3. Manipulation of data.

This last finding is the one that is most dependent on the accuracy of the hacked material, and since the accuracy will be difficult to verify (since the raw data has never been released), we must remember to not make it the foundation of our skepticism. The emails referred to using different tricks on the data. As a scientist who has done many statistical analyses on complex datasets, I can verify that these statistical analyses can be "tricky", but are necessary tools that find unseen trends in the data. But it is also very easy to manipulate the statistical analysis to make the results dance to your tune. Scientists hold each other accountable by sharing their raw data and allowing their colleagues to independently analyze their methods and conclusions.

It is important to note that the process of independent verification is NOT the same as the peer review process. A peer review process ensures that papers are generally methodologically sound and properly reported. Still many papers get through the peer review process that have poor methodologies or incorrect analyses, but those papers are then refuted in letters to the editor and with subsequent studies. This is why studies done independently are needed to verify the results of the study.

Thus, if there is a refusal to allow access to the data and the use of cronyism to prevent dissenting opinions from being published, the science stops becoming science.

4. Destruction of data.

In one of the hacked emails, Phil Jones tells his colleagues to delete some information and correspondence. Let's again remember these are hacked emails and we are not sure about the context of these emails or to what they may be referring. But it they are indeed deleting data and or official correspondence, this is illegal, unscientific and unethical.

This whole debacle has been extremely troubling. I had assumed that the proper scientific process had taken place and that the science of AGW had triumphed. But now that the Climategate scandal has brought to the surface the truth of the CRU's denial of independent verification, probable bullying of the scientific community, and possible manipulation and destruction of data.

These findings DEMAND a thorough, independent investigation and explanation.