Climate Change Researchers are Accused of Manipulating Scientific Findings, Censoring Data and Exaggerating the Problem of Global Warming
Rating: Molehill
The Charge
The release of emails stolen from climate scientists at the University of East Anglia (UEA), as well as the discovery of an error regarding the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers in the Fourth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), have led to claims by climate contrarians and some media commentators that the scientific consensus about climate change is false.
Is it political interference in science?
No. These allegations do not involve any governmental interference, but instead involve climate scientists and their findings and the conduct of a university. However, the Union of Concerned Scientists has developed several fact sheets which evaluate these allegations and place them in the proper context. We summarize the relevant issues here and provide links to further resources.
• Most troubling are indications that UEA scientists may have acted unprofessionally in refusing to comply with the U.K.’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). An investigation into those charges is still on-going, but if true such actions would represent a serious breach of the public trust. Read UCS’s statement on the FOIA allegations:
• Most troubling are indications that UEA scientists may have acted unprofessionally in refusing to comply with the U.K.’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). An investigation into those charges is still on-going, but if true such actions would represent a serious breach of the public trust. Read UCS’s statement on the FOIA allegations:
UK Scientists Must Comply with British Freedom of Information Act Requests
• Unfortunately, much of the controversy surrounding the stolen emails arises from comments taken out of context or twisted to imply wrong-doing that did not occur. Top U.S. climate scientists have signed a letter explaining to Congress the stolen email do not cast doubt on the climate science consensus. Furthermore, a British Parliamentary panel criticized the UEA for obstructing FOIA requests but found that the conduct UEA scientists did not compromise the integrity of their research or the scientific consensus on climate change. Read UCS’s statements on the stolen emails:
More Scientists Join Call to Reject Stolen E-Mail Claims
Top U.S. Scientists Tell Congress Stolen E-Mails Have No Bearing on Climate Science
Hacked E-Mails Are Part of Disinformation Campaign
Senator Inhofe Can’t Even Get the Dates Right on Stolen Emails
Patrick Michaels Falsely Blames Comments in Stolen Emails for Resignations At Climate Science Journal
An investigation by Penn State University cleared the climate scientist Michael Mann of the most serious charges made against him regarding incidents described in the emails. Read UCS’s statement on that panel’s findings:
University Clears Michael Mann on Stolen Email Allegations
• The IPCC did include in its report a false statement regarding when Himalayan glaciers are predicted to disappear. The report also contained a minor error regarding the percentage of land in the Netherlands which is below sea level. While regrettable, two errors (which have since been corrected) found in the thousands of pages of the report do not undermine the scientific consensus that climate change is real and influenced by human activity. Read UCS’s analysis of the IPCC science and a summary of the controversy written by climate experts at the website RealClimate.
Contrarians Attack IPCC Over Glacier Findings, But Glaciers are Still Melting
Attacks on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Obscure Real Science
What is the best way to ensure scientific integrity?
The climate change research community has gone to great lengths to synthesize and communicate its findings to the public and policy makers, but climate scientists finds their credibility questioned as a result of a few minor errors and potential unprofessional acts by a few researchers. On the scientific side, solutions include full and transparent compliance with all FOIA laws and a renewed emphasis on public engagement and education. However, in this case, full-throated attacks from those unwilling to accept the scientific consensus on climate change dominated media coverage and confused the public. Scientists and their scientific societies and universities must also be better prepared to respond to these sorts of attacks in the future.
