CRU hack, science, crime and ethics

The story so far: BPSDB

1. CRU research computer hacked, many emails copied, claims are made that they reveal broad scientific fraud;
2. Emails released, much sound and fury told by idiots, claims seem to be all innuendo and speculation;
3. More and more nothing as people search for something, anything of substance in the emails.

“I’m going to make sure he goes to jail!“

Does this statement reveal:

1. a corrupt prosecutor determined to subvert the legal system?
2. a prosecutor who has absolutely damning evidence against the accused?
3. a dedicated prosecutor talking about her commitment to successfully prosecute someone she sincerely believes to be guilty?

You decide for yourself, but I’d say there is no way to tell. In the first place there is nothing about the statement that gives any clues about which it might be.  It matters very much which it is because the statement in and of itself could easily be any of the three. As is and out of context it’s not anything you could call a good or bad thing.

Further, it matters what is actually done, not what was said. If the statement was 1), but the next morning he sobered up and went on to prosecute the case fairly and properly, then the statement was just bluster. Intemperate and stupid perhaps, but not a crime.

If it was 2) or 3), but the case subsequently went badly and the prosecutor began to tamper with and withhold evidence etc to try and get the conviction, then that is a crime and should be treated as such.

To determine whether the statement is referring to committing a crime or not requires that a crime actually needs to be committed or at least seriously planned (which actually is a crime).  Not only that, the statement could actually be referring to doing the right thing and doing it well (ie not simply neutral). The premise that it is necessarily referring to doing something illegal, wrong and/or unethical is just false.

Before we move on to the actual CRU emails, let’s consider a couple more hypothetical situation to examine the ethical questions. Let’s begin by noting that peer review is a process that helps ensure the quality of science, however it is not a perfect process

• and here,
• good discussion wrt climate science here and here,
• recent climate example here)

and inaccurate/flawed/fraudulent studies do get published. No system is perfect and it happens.

How science generally reacts to flawed studies varies. If the topic is important then others may rush to publish refutations. If the research is well known to flawed or the subject is relatively trivial and/or marginal then everyone simply ignores it. However, it may be a different matter if the stakes are significantly higher.

Suppose a medical researcher or group of researchers have good cause to believe that a particular study:

1. is incorrect/false/flawed, and
2. it’s publication will lead to practices that endangers peoples health and/or lives, and
3. there is a real risk the peer review process will miss the problems, and hence it will be published,

should they:

1. shrug and ignore it?
2. take every reasonable, ethical step to prevent publication, such as drawing journal editors attention to errors and problems with the research?
3. alert the medical community immediately through emails, non-peer reviewed publications etc?
4. let it be published and publish refutations of the research later (typically 3 to 6 months gap IF the refutation is ready to be submitted, otherwise much longer)?
5. do anything they can to subvert the process and prevent publication.?

I think most would agree that the researcher(s) is morally and ethically bound to attempt to do something. Whether you think they should do one of 2), 3) or 4), or some combination of them, is another matter. Some might even argue that the ethical situation would even justify 5) cf the Nuremburg Principles.

In our second situation, if a medical researcher or group of researchers have good cause to believe that a particular journal regularly publishes studies of the sort described above, should they:

1. shrug and ignore it?
2. take every reasonable, ethical step to alert the community to problems with that journal, such as drawing publishers and policy makers attention to errors and problems with the research?
3. alert the medical community immediately through emails, non-peer reviewed publications etc?
4. let it be them publish whatever they do and each time publish refutations of the research later (typically 3 to 6 months gap IF the refutation is ready to be submitted, otherwise much longer)?
5. do anything they can to subvert the process and prevent publication?

As with the first example, I think most would agree that they are morally obligated to do something, although there may be debate about exactly what.

With that in mind, let’s look at some more of the “daming emails” that has everyone in a tizzy, specifically those that purport show evidence of attempts to subvert peer reviewed research.

• • Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489) Climate Cuttings 33
  • Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. (1051190249) Climate Cuttings 33
  • Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. (1106322460) Climate Cuttings 33

“…The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what t he peer-review literature is!” 1089318616.txt

and so on.

As discussed, the researchers have a moral obligation to take any reasonable and legal action to prevent publication or use of research that they sincerely believe to be flawed/false. Not only is it not wrong to attempt to address the situation, it is morally wrong not to.

What is important is what they actually do. If they alert editors to specific problems with the research (editors are not idiots, they will make their own judgment about the validity of such claims), or use other media to openly alert the community to the problems, that is all well and good.

If, on the other hand, they subvert the process by using means that are not based on the scientific facts, whether by using influence (“Hey Ed, you owe me, kill this paper and don’t ask why”), bribes (these ‘Spice Girls’ tickets could be yours if …), lying etc, then it is wrong. I will leave it to others to debate whether the latter instance would be morally wrong in an ultimate sense cf Nuremburg; for my purposes here I am willing to call it wrong at least in the immediate sense.

So the CRU crew discussed preventing publication of certain research and trying to bring about changes in certain journals that they sincerely believed to be publishing false/incorrect information. So far, good for them, but what did they actually do?

For the most part the emails do not actually tell us. One exception is documented by Rabett and Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub where they show that in at least one instance the researchers simply published refutations (ie acted correctly in all respects under any possible interpretation).

So let’s state that very clearly:

Whether they are right or wrong about the science, a researcher has a moral obligation to use ethical and legal means to try and prevent the publication or use of work that they sincerely believe to be false and endangers human well being.

That is not a crime, it is actually a moral duty. Further, there is no evidence that the CRU Crew did anything unethical or illegal in seeking to do this.

Remember that to this point we are simply discussing whether there is any evidence of wrong doing, not whether the they were right or wrong about the journal or the research in question. What about that? Well, at least with respect to the examples given in the emails, they were right (odd how that doesn’t get discussed).

With respect to the journal Climate Research see “Climate Research” controversy, also here and

Climate Research and peer-review: You should read about the issuesClaire Goodess, Hans von Storch) who resigned because of a breakdown of the peer review process at that journal, that came to light with the particularly egregious (and well-publicised) paper by Soon and Baliunas (2003). The publisher’s assessment is here.

The CRU hack: Context

Equally, the journal Energy & Environment is peer reviewed only in the most facile and meaningless sense, and it looks like even EBSCO is going to stop pretending that they are a peer reviewed journal.

As for the research discussed in the emails, we now know they were right about them too (ie they have all since been refuted by peer reviewed science which has since stood up to scrutiny).

Despite Denier and Earthsucker claims to the contrary, the issue is NOT suppressing contrary views and debate, but rather keeping corrupt and bad science out of the debate. Or does someone want to step forward and argue that false claims and bogus studies should be part of the debate? Certainly they act as if they do, but are they willing to come right out and  say it in so many words?

Unless anyone can show that Spice Girls tickets were offered as bribes, or that any other form of unethical behaviour was engaged in with respect to this aspect of the controversy, then all these emails show is that the authors did the right thing.

One email and the commentary deserves particular mention though:

Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier to push greenery there now SB-C has retired. (1256765544) Climate Cuttings 33

What’s interesting about this one is that it is actually Sonia Boehmer Christiansen (editor of Energy and Environment, one of the journals in contention above). who is attempting to prevent  peer reviewed literature from influencing policy, something which the Denialosphere alleges is a heinous and actionable crime. By contrast Jones is merely responding to Christiansen’s allegations about his work.

According to the Denialosphere, which of the two is at fault here? Just in case you were curious whether the Deniers were championing openness and integrity in science, or are on a witch hunt after specific individuals regardless of the facts.

And for the record, “ even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” ranks right up there with “even if I have to warp space and time to do it.” It’s a ludicrous suggestion meant to indicate serious intent, but read literally it is just silly. Anyone treating it as a serious statement is only parading their ignorance.

“Over the 20th century, ocean temperatures in the North Atlantic main development region warmed during peak hurricane season, with the most pronounced warming occurring over the last four decades.”  Earth Gauge

We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.

IMAGE CREDITS:

Justice by mindgutter

Justice, 50 Fleet Street, London by mira66

Chambers County’s Lady of Justice by jimmywayne

Justice delayed by prodigaldog

Fathers 4 Justice by minifig

Comment Policy

Comments that are not relevant to the post that they appear under or the evolving discussion will simply be deleted, as will links to Denier spam known to be scientific gibberish

• The “Mostly” Open Thread” is for general climate discussion that is not relevant to a particular post. Spam and abuse rules still apply;
• The “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread is for comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change.

Advertisements