Stolen files?

Big news of the day is how "a huge cache of secret US military files" provides a "devastating portrait of the failing war in Afghanistan". They have been obtained by the "whistleblowers' website" Wikileaks in what is described as "one of the biggest leaks in US military history."

The files have been made available to The Guardian, The New York Times and the German weekly Der Spiegel, with The Guardian in particular, pushing the boat out, running multiple stories and linking to the files.

But do we see here, or in The Independent, or even in The Daily Telegraph - which also features the files – any suggestion that they are stolen?

Largely, is seems they have been "revealed" or "leaked" and the contents "disclosed". But nowhere do I see the word "stolen" – so far. How so very different this is, then, from the treatment of the "Climategate" files, which had the media, and especially the left wing press, spluttering in its muesli.

We even had The Times report that: "UN officials have likened the theft of e-mails from university climate researchers to the Watergate scandal, " and that was after them claiming that "computer hackers were probably paid by people intent on undermining the Copenhagen summit."

Thus, whatever the merits or otherwise of "release" of the "war logs", as The Guardian is calling them, the difference in treatment is quite remarkable. Some might even call it hypocrisy.

COMMENT THREAD

Oxburgh – not a whitewash

Although seen and widely reported as once again exonerating the CRU scientists at the centre of the "Climategate" scandal, it is important to note that the so-called Oxburgh report, published today, had a very limited brief.

The essence of the criticism that the Panel was asked to address – or so it tells us - was whether climatic data had been "dishonestly selected, manipulated and/or presented to arrive at pre-determined conclusions that were not compatible with a fair interpretation of the original data."

The Panel, we are reminded, was not concerned with "the question of whether the conclusions of the published research were correct." Rather "it was asked to come to a view on the integrity of the Unit's research and whether as far as could be determined the conclusions represented an honest and scientifically justified interpretation of the data."

With such a limited remit, its substantive conclusion was that, it "saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit". Offering more than a minor hostage to fortune, it then goes on to say that: "had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it."

Rather, the Panel concludes, "we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention. As with many small research groups their internal procedures were rather informal."

In response, it comes as little surprise to find that Steve McIntyre is rather less than impressed, and in particular for one very good reason.

Perversely, Oxburgh and his merry men, in their rush to give the CRU a clean bill of health, make an entirely false distinction between the unit's output – which they say drew attention to the limitations of and uncertainties in their work – and the work by the IPCC and others which "have sometimes neglected to highlight this issue."

What McIntyre quite rightly points out is that, in terms of the temperature records produced, the CRU and the IPCC were effectively one and the same – the responsibility for the IPCC's output rested largely with Briffa and Jones. They, along with Michael Mann, actively prevented the limitations of and uncertainties in their work being included in the IPCC reports.

This, more than anything, is what is seen to turn the Oxburgh report into what could be called a "whitewash", although a commenter in The Daily Telegraph offers the words: "systemic political corruption".

On the face of it, it is hard to disagree with this. As McIntyre notes, the Panel was announced on 22 March and its report is dated 12 April – three weeks end-to-end. They took no evidence and their list of references is 11 CRU papers, five on tree rings, six on CRUTEM. Notably missing are the 1000-year reconstructions, which must count as the most controversial and influential pieces of work produced by the unit.

Had the Panel been serious in its endeavour, it would most certainly have interviewed (or at least communicated with) McIntyre, and possibly Andrew Montford, of Bishop Hill fame. But it did neither. In fact, all it did was interview members of the CRU. On these grounds, the Panel fails and fails dismally.

However, while the failures are obvious and manifold, there is something of the Curates's egg in the report. For instance, there are the references to the equivocal nature of the science. In selecting the appropriate data, "a great deal of judgement has to be used", says the Panel, what to use and discard are "all matters of experience and judgement" and "the potential for misleading results arising from selection bias is very great in this area."

These comments need to be put in context with the second of the Panel's conclusions. Surprise is expressed that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods was not carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians.

There would be mutual benefit, the Panel says, if there were closer collaboration and interaction between CRU and a much wider scientific group outside the relatively small international circle of temperature specialists.

Such is the nearest thing one finds to real criticism, but the lines are broad and reading between them suggests the recognition of a major failure in the use of statistical techniques.

Thus, we can put together a picture of the selection of data requiring "a great deal of judgement" which is extremely prone to selection bias, which was then subject to statistical techniques without the input from professional statisticians. And on top of that, there is an acknowledgement that judgemental decisions made had not been properly recorded, so that the work could be replicated by others.

Even in the limited terms of this report, therefore, we have serious doubt cast upon the adequacy of the CRU's work, with the only substantive finding being that any misrepresentation was not "deliberate". Whether it was or not, there is enough there to suggest that this is not work on which it would be safe to base policy decisions which are set to cost trillions of dollars and caused major economic disruptions.

Alarmingly, though, while the egregious Louise Gray in her report in The Daily Telegraph does not see it that way.

She is forced to concede that the scientists had been criticised for being "naive" and "disorganised", but then goes on to say that there was no evidence of "deliberate scientific malpractice". From this, she concludes (her words) that "the conclusion that mankind is causing global warming is probably correct."

Not by any stretch of the imagination can this be supported, especially as the Panel – as we saw – set out to exclude from its brief "the question of whether the conclusions of the published research were correct." Gray has crossed the line and gone well over it, injecting falsehood into a news report.

However, Gray is not alone. The Nature blog headlines: "science solid despite lack of statistical know-how", which again cannot be imputed from the report.

At least though, the Telegraph leader notes that the findings of the Oxburgh inquiry are not an excuse for again closing down the climate-change debate to the exclusion of those who take a sceptical attitude to what is arguably the most important issue facing the world.

That much is true, but much more could and should be read into the report. Thus to brand it simply as a "whitewash" and to dismiss it entirely on those grounds would be a disservice to the sceptic cause. There is much that is useable in the report which, although muted, is nevertheless, an indictment of the CRU and climate science. To that extent, it is not a whitewash.

COMMENT THREAD - CLIMATE CHANGE

Another crack

Fred Pearce, the New Scientist of "Glaciergate" fame (his 1999 article having been quoted by the WWF 2005 paper), is in The Guardian today, with two linked stories, based on an analysis of the "Climategate" e-mails.

The stories can be found here and here, questioning the work done by Jones et al, of CRU fame, on the Chinese urban heat island effect.

The remarkable aspects of these reports are, firstly, that Pearce is a staunch "warmist" who has been in the forefront of hyping up climate alarmism. Secondly, this appears to be the first occasion where an MSM journalist has initiated his own investigation on the "Climategate" e-mails. Thirdly, the stories are published in the temple of "warmism", The Guardian.

Pearce, as one might expect, stresses that the findings do not change the global picture of temperature trends, quoting his source saying, "My interest in all this arises from concern about research integrity, rather than about global warming per se. Jones knew there were serious problems with the Chinese research, yet continued to rely upon the research in his work, including allowing it to be cited in the IPCC report."

This, nevertheless, is another major crack in the dam, a damning indictment of Jones, the CRU and, indirectly, the IPCC. The edifice is tottering.

CLIMATE CHANGE – FINAL PHASE THREAD