The report is now online and you can find it here
The first thing to say that it is big, running to 160 pages, so it will be a few days before anyone will be able to make a comprehensive assessment. The following comments are confined to reading the executive summary only.
Here are the bits that will undoubtedly catch the headlines ahead of detailed reading of the report:
13. Climate science is a matter of such global importance, that the highest standards of honesty, rigour and openness are needed in its conduct. On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.
14. In addition, we do not find that their behaviour has prejudiced the balance of advice given to policy makers. In particular, we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.
15. But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of the CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA, who failed to recognise not only the significance of statutory requirements but also the risk to the reputation of the University and, indeed, to the credibility of UK climate science
So it would seem that the only major criticism that this report chooses to make is that scientists have guarded their work a little too jealously, which will no doubt amaze many people who have read the emails. But note also the use of the word ‘conclusions’ in paragraph 14), and that in paragraph 13) although the scientists ‘rigour and honesty’ is not in doubt, that is not quite the same as saying that their conduct has been of the ‘highest standard’ as described in the first sentence
In setting out the inquiry’s remit the report has this to say:
5. […] the UEA commissioned two inquiries. The first led by Lord Oxburgh, into the science being undertaken at CRU, has already reported. This document is the report of the second inquiry – The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review – which examines the conduct of the scientists involved and makes recommendations to the University of East Anglia. Our inquiry addresses a number of important allegations that were made following the e-mail release.
One might therefore expect that the Russell Report would stay well clear of quality of research. So it’s a bit surprising when one finds the following:
17. On the allegation of biased station selection and analysis, we find no evidence of bias. …
19. The overall implication of the allegations was to cast doubt on the extent to which CRU’s work in this area [land station temperatures] could be trusted and should be relied upon and we find no evidence to support that implecation [sic].
Turning to the blogosphere the report has this to say:
35. Handling the blogosphere and non traditional scientific dialogue. One of the most obvious features of the climate change debate is the influence of the blogosphere. This provides an opportunity for unmoderated comment to stand alongside peer reviewed publications; for presentations or lectures at learned conferences to be challenged without inhibition; and for highly personalized critiques of individuals and their work to be promulgated without hindrance. This is a fact of life, and it would be foolish to challenge its existence. The Review team would simply urge all scientists to learn to communicate their work in ways that the public can access and understand. That said, a key issue is how scientists should be supported to explain their position, and how a public space can be created where these debates can be conducted on appropriate terms,where what is and is not uncertain can be recognised.
36. Openness and Reputation. An important feature of the blogosphere is the extent to which it demands openness and access to data. A failure to recognise this and to act appropriately, can lead to immense reputational damage by feeding allegations of cover up. Being part of a like minded group may provide no defence. Like it or not, this indicates a transformation in the way science has to be conducted in this century.
The report would seem to be looking only at the problems caused by bloggers washing climate science’s dirty laundry in public, not the state of laundry itself.
Given that the blogosphere precipitated the Climategate scandal, and thereby made Sir Muir’s report necessary, it really is very strange that his panel has not chosen to interview any blogger. It is also very strange that the name of Judith Curry, a mainstream climate scientist who has probably made the most perceptive comments on the disaster that has befallen her profession, does not appear in text search of the report.
There seems little doubt that the global warming lobby will draw much comfort from the Russell report, initially at least. But it would also seem possible that it will mark an important milestone in the climate debate for reasons that they will be less jubilant about. As with the Hutton and Butler reports on the Iraq war, people are likely to ask whether the conclusions are supported by the evidence. Without a complete and thorough reading of the report it is too soon to tell, but if doubts emerge, then trust in climate science, in science generally, in the scientific establishment that oversees science, in politicians who rely on science to justify their policies and in NGO’s, and in journalists whose very survival depends on scientific evidence will be further undermined.
Can I ask everyone to be very careful when commenting on this thread. Ad hominem attacks and unsupported or libellous allegations are not likely to improve matters, however tempting they may be. I will snip ruthlessly.
[All emphasis in quoatations as used in the report.]
So the obvious question.
Will UEA and the CRU now release the data under FOI requests?
Nick
As the law stands at the moment there are still a whole range of exemptions that they can claim if they prefer not to do so. I guess their attitude may be heavily influenced by the kind of coverage that the Russell report gets in the MSM.
1.5, 37 suggests that this is something that should be determined by funders, which seems rather strange as there would be no consistency if this was the case and presumably a researcher who didn’t want to release data could influence the funder’s decision if close scrutiny was in neither’s interest.
From a quick review of the report and noting various comments, my initial view is that sceptics should, in fact, be quite encouraged. After all, given that this was an enquiry set up by the body (UAE) being investigated and only CRU people were interviewed, a one-sided outcome must have been expected. But nonetheless it’s not really a “whitewash”. In fact, reading between the lines, it is surprisingly critical – OK, the CRU team’s honesty may not be considered to be in question but the way they conducted their science most certainly was: “unhelpful and defensive”, “misleading” – really quite strong stuff given the provenance. OK, there’s said to be no evidence of a conspiracy – but how many serious critics said there was? As Fred Pearce says in the Guardian (here), “nor does it justify the claim of university vice-chancellor Sir Edward Action that it is a “complete exoneration”.” Quite so.
Following this affair, warmist researchers can no longer expect to go unchallenged. No longer can they work in secrecy. No longer will they be able to proceed in the comfortable certainty that they will be supported by an uncritical media and vast amounts of public money. No longer will an increasingly sceptical public be impressed by yet more scary warnings. No longer will appeals to authority and consensus be accepted without demur.
But, more important, from hereon climate science will have to be properly conducted. That can only be a very good thing.
All this amounts to a substantial and very welcome change in attitudes.
Just caught a quick trail that Newsnight are covering climategate at 10.30 tonight-Wednesday.
Tonyb
Jones asked others to delete emails and threatened to do so himself. So did Jones delete emails? We don’t know, because nobody asked him, or if they did, his answer isn’t recorded.
The hacked or leaked FOI2009 file contained just 0.3% of the total email traffic. How was it chosen? Russell devotes a long appendix to explaining how difficult it is to ascertain how the file was compiled. Did anyone ask CRU staff whether they compiled the file? We don’t know, because there is no record of interviews.
Pielke, McKitrick, McIntyre and Montford have all made substantive criticisms of individual findings. Far too technical to make it into the mainstream media, where comment is limited to attempts to gauge the severity or otherwise of the raps across the knuckles, or the precise thickness of the coat of whitewash.
In the Guardian Monbiot and Pearce have both had their moment of radical investigative journalistic tut-tutting, and have run back into the global warming fold.
I don’t share Robin’ s optimism at #3 that hereafter warmist propaganda will be met with a more sceptical attitude. Doom will just come with a new kite label “based on new improved science, following the IPCC/Climategate affair.”
Sir Edward Acton was being interviewed on Channel 4 News earlier, and the video link is here.
I put together a transcript of the interview and hopefully you will be able to view it here. (If you’re unable to open the document, please let me know.) Will comment more tomorrow.
Geoff:
The Newsnight report might cheer you up and it should be available on their website tomorrow morning:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006mk25
The wind has certainly changed at the BBC. All the reports I have heard from them today have hammered home the same point: this story isn’t over yet. The sight of de Boer, Lawson and Watson more or less on the same couch, with Gavin Esler being nice to Lawson and asking probing questions all round was encouraging.
And for what it’s worth, the origin of FOI2009 was the first thing that I looked for when the report came out too. I assumed that I had just missed it so didn’t mention it in the post, but if Fred Pearce can’t find it then it probably isn’t there. Given the terms of reference and the extent of the deliberations on FOI that is going to take some explaining. I wonder what could have made them leave it out?
My self confidence in making correct predictions has taken a bit of a dent at the World Cup recently. Brazil to beat Holland, Germany to beat Spain. I just can’t get anything right when it comes to football.
I was however confident, and indeed did predict, that any inquiry into Phil Jones and his team would find there was no intention to deceive, nor was there any evidence of scientific malpractice. I was equally confident in predicting that you guys would use the term “whitewash”! Its nice to know I can get something right!
Alex, #6:
I’m a very poor copy reader as anyone who follows this blog will know, but this is the fourth paragraph from the Chanel 4 report that included video of the Acton interview:
Do you think that we should tell them?
It was partly the Channel 4 interview with Sir Edward Acton that prompted my #3. Following Newsnight, I stick with that analysis (Geoff).
And Peter: re the independence of the inquiry, would you be happy if BP set up an “independent” enquiry into the oil leak disaster? Of course, Phil Jones and his team were cleared. UK inquiries are masters of whitewash – think Iraq for example. But the media’s onto it now. Hence their change in attitude last night. Interesting.
TonyN, well spotted – after some (very brief) soul-searching, I think it would be only fair that we should let it stand (!)
Re the “no evidence of any attempt to delete information” statement, Steve McIntyre puts it in a nutshell, here.
I also like the analogy in a comment by Isonomia here in the Scotsman (linked to by a CA commentator).
I think that Sir Muir Russell’s statement: “We urge scientists to learn to communicate their work in ways that the public can understand” is key. It feeds directly into the “failure to communicate” meme that has been so apparent this year, and that is the line they will stick with.
Robin,
So what would be your idea of independent? You don’t want ‘independent’ anyway!
You’d want the inquiry to be headed by an approved climate denialist like Monckton or Lawson!
I don’t know if you’ve ever played any kind of sport but the idea is for everyone to try to abide by the referee’s or umpire’s decision. Its usually OK to have a little moan now and again but you do take it too far you’ll get sent off!
How this plays out depends largely on media reaction. Judging by the on line versions, the Times, Telegraph and Independent seem to have kept the story off the front page. Only the Guardian treats it as a major story. Their environment website has seventeen articles on the subject in the past 24 hours!
The latest, by David Adam, asks a number of experts: “How has ‘Climategate’ affected the battle against climate change?”
They presumably knew this before the Russell report, so don’t need to read it.
which says a lot about attitudes to democracy in and around Westminster.
The most perceptive remark to my mind comes from über warmist blogger Dorlomin, who says:
PeterM
The term “whitewash” is in general use concerning this whole sad affair, and has not been invented by the contributors to this site, as you seem to believe.
Sure, the vested interests are going to try to show that there was no real wrongdoing (as they did in the Watergate days), but I doubt that this will be any more successful today than it was back then.
Max
TonyN re your #9, it now reads “Few serious observers ever thought there was something rotten at the heart of climate change science and Sir Muir Russell’s review bears this out.”
Either someone else spotted the slip and reported it, or at least one C4 person is a Harmless Sky reader!
I felt that this report had to contain some criticisms of the scientists as it was just too obvious to the general public that what had been occurring at CRU was not right.
On the matter of freedom of information it is simple. If these scientists are going to influence our politicians into changing our way of life, and suggesting we do it unilaterally, then they need not only to demonstrate they are 100% certain of their findings, but also ensure that others can replicate their findings. No matter who funds the science, if it is used to develop public policy, it follows that it must be open to all. No debate, no questions.
Now we know so far that the work of the CRU contains many uncertainties, and no climate scientist or any other has been prepared so far to say they are 100% certain that CO2 is causing dangerous warming and present any evidence that this is so, especially given that all the empirical evidence suggests otherwise. Never mind waffle about computer simulations or correlations with various proxies, they have to explain what is happening now. That they can’t is telling in itself.
As the Russell inquiry has not interviewed the sceptical side of the debate it again will not be taken seriously by the public and is perhaps why the BBC has felt compelled to have a change in attitude, although the Panorama last week would have been given a fail if put together as part of an 11 plus exam. Also the BBC must be wary of the cuts that are coming and I think finally they may sense they need to reflect public opinion rather than their own opinion.
Thanks Alex #6 for the link to the Channel 4 transcript of the Edward Acton interview. I hope they haven’t corrected this:
But my favourite Actonism is this:
I suppose “alerting the species” is one up from saving Humanity, since it presumably includes all homo sapiens, past and yet unborn. Clearly a Nobel Prize is not enough for these chaps.
PeterM (#12):
So it seems you would be happy if BP was responsible for arranging an “independent” investigation into the Gulf of Mexico disaster. You do have some odd notions.
PS: No, I would not regard an inquiry headed by Monckton or Lawson as independent.
PeterM (8)
I think we could have predicted that, too! If the CRU’s behaviour wasn’t malpractice, though, one has to wonder what would be…
Muir Russell has a long appendix describing how easy it is for anyone to get hold of world temperature data, write code and verify the work of the CRU scientists. The implication being that the FOI requests for data with which CRU were bombarded were vexatious.
Do the inquiry members understand that the requests were not for all the data in the world, but specifically for the data as used in specific papers? If no, then they haven’t the foggiest idea what the debate is about. If yes, then this appendix is a straw man argument, a deliberate attempt to mislead.
Steve Jones clearly understood this point when he wrote to Warwick Hughes “Why should I give you my data, when you only want to find something wrong with it?” Perhaps he should explain it to Muir Russell.
Robin,
I’d be happy with any independent team investigating the BP fiasco in the gulf. No not an internal BP one of course. One of US supreme court judges to lead a team which would include oil engineers and academics maybe?
So what about answering my question on who you would consider to be genuinely independent for the UEA review?
I’m not sure why you are so cynical of UK inquiries. What about the recent Saville inquiry? That wasn’t exactly an establishment cover up.
Geoff, re your #17, it’s my bad actually; have just listened to it again. “Random changes of dishonesty” would definitely have been more interesting (“Mike, it’s Phil here. Just rolled the dice and got a six – that means you’re the one who has to make something up this week.”) but he actually said “charges”, so I’ve corrected it now. Also I may need to correct my #6, not sure if Prof Acton is actually a Sir(?)
But the excellent line “alerting the species” stays in. :o)
He will be.
The three recent climategate-related whitewashes together with the Penn State whitewash of Michael Mann are actually the best news possible for those who are rationally skeptical of the dangerous AGW premise and the “science” behind it.
This article explains why
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100046524/climategate-reinstating-phil-jones-is-good-news-the-cru-brand-remains-toxic/
In memoriam of another famous scandal, Jones, Pachauri, Mann, etc. should all get (green) T-shirts with the words “I AM NOT A CROOK” inscribed on front.
Max
Manacker #24
I’m surprised to see you embracing the Trotskyist “worse means better” school of political strategy. Its weakness lies in the fact that worse only leads to better if people are aware of what’s going on. I don’t know if Gerald Warner was having bit of hyperbolic fun or if he really believes that:
Sorry to be a wet blanket, but that’s not what they’re talking about round our way.
The Harrabin interview linked by Robin on the previous thread shows what we can expect to happen if reporting becomes more even-handed. Nothing. Harrabin did a good job of summarising a complex affair, but the significance of what he said will have been understood only by the few hundreds of sceptics who have been following the story.
Some blogger made an excellent point when he said that global warming mitigation will turn out to be like nuclear deterrence, a ruinously expensive investment in something of doubtful use, but impossible to get rid of. When the lights go out, will the government and the EU admit they have been pursuing a will-o-the wisp, or will they put it down to “the wrong sort of windmills” and keep plodding onward to the past?
(PS could we have a term for arguments based on doubtful analogies? We’ve had the Gish Gallop. What about the Cotswolds Ramble?)