Source: BBC Radio 4: Today Programme
URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8394000/8394501.stm
Date: 04/12/2009
Event: Distorting the debate "to make the threat seem even more serious than they believed it to be"
People:
Justin Webb: Simon, this is an acceptance, isn't it, that this whole thing is now a very big deal.
Simon Cox: Well, it is interesting, because earlier on, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, who's the Chairman of the IPCC, had put out a statement defending the IPCC's procedures, that this was in response to one particular email from Dr. Phil Jones, who's Director of the Climatic Research Unit at University of East Anglia. And he talked in that email about trying to keep several research papers out of the next IPCC report - they produce these every six years, on average. He says in one email "Even if we have to redefine what peer review literature is" - it's seen as a very serious charge. The IPCC said "Our procedures are fine, you know, there's lots of different scientists who review and assess all the different research papers", but when we spoke to Dr. Pachauri, he told us that the IPCC would now look into the matter in detail, and they were, as you mentioned, taking the emails very seriously.
Rajendra Pachauri: We certainly will go into the whole lot, and then, as I said, we'll take a position on it. So we certainly don't want to brush anything under the carpet; we don't want to sweep it under the carpet. We're - this is a serious issue, and we certainly will look into it in detail.
Justin Webb: And the university, of course, are also looking into it. What have they got to say?
Simon Cox: Well, as you mention, they have their own internal investigation. They've just appointed the chair of that, yesterday. Dr. Phil Jones has temporarily stepped down as Director of the CRU this week, until the university carries out that investigation. Now he has strenuously denied trying to suppress any papers or keep them out of the IPCC report. But because of the ongoing inquiry, no-one from the CRU at the university was available for interview, for us.
Justin Webb: And meanwhile, some governments - and particularly in the United States - this has really taken off, hasn't it.
Simon Cox: Absolutely. If you look at any of the blogs in the U.S., it's getting an awful lot of traction, as they would say over there. But what people in the U.S. have been telling us is going to be interesting is when the U.S. comes back from the Copenhagen summit, whatever deal they strike, getting that through Congress is going to be made harder because of these emails.
Justin Webb: Because any treaty has to be ratified by the Senate, doesn't it. That's only a hundred people, but it - it's quite a tricky task.
Simon Cox: Absolutely. And when you look at what the Republican senator who's the lead on the Environment Committee there - Senator Inhofe - is saying, he is a known sceptic and emails like this just provide more ammunition for them, in a sense. So, it will be interesting how it continues to play out in the U.S., once a deal is struck.
Justin Webb: Simon Cox, thank you.
* * *
John Humphrys: The theft of a few emails from a relatively obscure university in East Anglia is threatening the future of the planet. And if that sounds like the plot of a very bad disaster movie, well, suspend your disbelief for just a moment. The facts are that the emails were stolen or leaked, and they reveal that some researchers in the university's Climatic Research Unit had been distorting the debate about global warming, to make the threat seem even more serious than they believed it to be. It's also the case that the mightily influential United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change regards this as so serious its head has announced it will investigate. Where we enter less certain territory is what effect all this will have on attempts to fight global warming by those who believe it really does threaten the planet. Not that everyone does - Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at London University, is sceptical, and he's with me. I'm also joined by Jonathon Porritt, the founder of the Forum for the Future and former environment adviser to the government. First, though, Richard Black, our environment correspondent. Richard, those - that data from the University of East Anglia - did they - is the evidence from the leaked emails that they actually fiddled the figures or manipulated the research, or what?
Richard Black: Well, there are certainly some emails that indicated some of the researchers were trying to, if you like, increase the appearance of some data, or perhaps suppress the importance of others. But, what I think is very important is, John, is we've only got a partial record here. I mean, there's definitely, you know, far more emails on that [sic] 13-year exchanges between researchers at CRU and other places than have been released. We've got a small selection, so how was the selection done? What don't we have? Were any of these apparently unresolved issues actually resolved afterwards? And we simply don't know about it. So the university has now announced its independent review. And one of the things that it's going to look at - the key term of reference, if you like - is to examine this very issue, examine whether there was evidence of suppression or manipulation of data at odds with acceptable scientific practice which may call into question any of the research outcomes.
John Humphrys: What we do know is that it is having an effect.
Richard Black: Well, absolutely. Because in the political domain, you don't need the scientific picture to be clear. You simply need politicians to take what they want from this rather confused and half-baked picture and make of it what they will. And yesterday we had the first indication that it might have a concrete influence on the Copenhagen talks, when the Saudi Arabia's lead negotiator Mohammed al-Sabban told the BBC "It appears, from the details of the scandal, that there is no relationship whatsoever between human activities and climate change." Now whether that will be shared by other negotiators, whether the Saudis in fact believe this or whether it's a political bargaining tool, whether some countries that have been slightly cool on the idea of a deal - perhaps Russia, perhaps Canada, who knows? - whether this plays into their stance. As you said - you said this is "less certain territory", and I think that's a perfect description.
John Humphrys: Hmm. Thanks very much, Richard. So, Jonathon Porritt, does that worry you? Well, it must worry you, I suppose, if that is what's developing out there.
Jonathon Porritt: Yes, it's very worrying, there's no question about that. It's worrying because the integrity of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's process is absolutely fundamental. Without that integrity, politicians can't necessarily trust what the scientists have been telling them, and that imperils the entire venture. So clearing this up is absolutely crucial, and people shouldn't be making light of this. It is fundamental. Of course, having said that, we do need to be careful which voices we're listening to, and I do hope nobody's taking the opinions of Saudi Arabia too seriously. This is the country that has systematically tried to scupper any discussions about climate change for the best part of 20 years. They clearly have their own self-interests at heart, here, and they have over-claimed massively about the significance of what these emails might be. Whatever the significance is, it does not show that there is no link between human activity and climate change - that, you can say categorically.
John Humphrys: But it isn't just Saudi Arabia that is sceptical is it, that's the trouble -
Jonathon Porritt: No, that's the trouble -
John Humphrys: You seem to - I say "you", those who believe passionately that climate change, caused by man, is a serious threat to the planet - seem to be losing the argument with public opinion.
Jonathon Porritt: Yes, and I'm sure that governments - particularly our government here in the UK - will be very concerned about this, because people are very uncertain, they're very confused, they hear all these conflicting voices. They'll hear this and they'll think" Oh, that's another bit of evidence that goes in a different direction from that which our government is telling us". Of course, the CRU - the Climatic Research Unit - is only one part of a huge scientific effort going on around the world, and we just have to keep this in perspective.
John Humphrys: What is your perspective, Professor Stott?
Philip Stott: I think, John, this was nearly inevitable. I think, because we're functioning in a very difficult society, these days, for scientists. Many scientists are becoming very defensive about their positions, especially when those positions are going to lead to policy, and possibly the spending of literally hundreds of billions of dollars for that policy. They become very defensive indeed. And I think that what has happened is there's been the creation of a group of other scientists outside, with all sorts of other ideas about climate change, some in Denmark, Russia, Canada and Israel, I can mention. All with different theories about what's contributing to it, but in a sense they've become excluded voices. Now, that inevitably leads to a position, I think, John, where a degree of scepticism arises about the actual core science that's being presented.
John Humphrys: Isn't that the problem that they have been excluded, isn't the reality that they have been excluded - to use your language, whether they have been or not - because they are not climate change experts, because the people on the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change are, specifically, climate change experts, that they have a degree of expertise that other scientists you mention don't, in that area.
Philip Stott: The ones that I was thinking of are climate change specialists in their own right, sometimes coming from physics and astrophysics, granted, but also water vapour specialists, for example - Jan Veizer in Canada. They are, in fact, geologists and sometimes specialists on climate themselves, but a very important point about the IPCC, John, that's often forgotten - climate science is an inverted pyramid. In other words, it's resting on a remarkably small foundation. Because what we are all dependent on are the few modellers and the few people who manipulate the data to make the curves, in other words, the climate curves - that's actually quite small. Because remember, the IPCC does not carry out climate research. All it does, it brings together all the papers from around the world, from peer reviewing and et cetera, brings them together, but the actual number of scientists that are really at that bottom is quite small, about 30 or 40.
John Humphrys: But that sort of meta analysis, if that's what you're talking about -
Philip Stott: It is a meta analysis, John.
John Humphrys: - entirely respectable in science, that's how we reach our big conclusions.
Philip Stott: But it depends, of course, and this is the important thing University of East Anglia emails, it depends, of course, on the legitimacy of that peer reviewing process, and that, in a sense, is what's being brought into question. But the other point about the inverted pyramid - if that bottom goes, in other words if the bottom of that pyramid is attacked and collapses in any way, the whole pyramid collapses. The vast vested interests that are now in global warming - as a construct, politically - begin to fall. That's why this is so important.
John Humphrys: Is this a fair point, Jonathon Porritt, that it isn't only - because we've been told for quite a long time - I think it's fair to say, and you'd agree on this - I think it's fair to say we've been told that the real scientists all agree - virtually all agree - on climate change, and the other people are, kind of, mavericks. Do you accept that there are real scientists - in the sense that Philip Stott has just described them - who have genuine reservations, based on scientific evidence?
Jonathon Porritt: I do, and I always have, and I think you'll find that most people who are out there, trying to get a consensus behind them, always acknowledged that there are real scientists who have important points to raise, which question the prevailing consensus. And that's absolutely part of the deal. I think Philip has slightly over-egged the case. The inverted pyramid metaphor is a good one, but of course it isn't just the modelling on which this consensus is based. It is based on thousands of pieces of research about what is happening in the climate right now, which is also part of the IPCC process. And I think it's a shame to describe those as "vested interests" -
John Humphrys: Because we can see glaciers melting, for instance.
Jonathon Porritt: We can. We can see changes in many ecosystems, all around the planet. And that is part of the way in which the IPCC builds the evidence base. That isn't a vested interest, Philip. That's a legitimate empirical process going on, testing the degree to which the models are now being borne out in physical reality all around the world.
Philip Stott: Yes, but - I think Jonathon makes a good point there, but two answers in riposte, I think. First, very importantly, seeing things happen doesn't necessarily give us an idea of cause. In other words, you're going to have climate change whatever happens - that doesn't interpret cause -
John Humphrys: Bit of a coincidence, though, isn't it, that we should have this change, we should have these melting glaciers at a time when we have more CO2 in the atmosphere, and so on.
Philip Stott: Well, not necessarily, because that's putting a very simplistic relationship -
John Humphrys: Indeed, but sooner or later -
Philip Stott: - for example, a man I mentioned earlier, Professor Jan Veizer would argue that both CO2 and temperature are driven jointly by the hydrological cycle, by water vapour, and that in fact it's a false correlation, just to give one example of a scientist who would disagree with that. But I think the second point, which is really important about this, is that of course we have lots of studies, but what they're using is the models that have come out from the base. You take this model, you apply it to, say, insects, and say "Oh yes, but all the insects are going to suffer and die". That then becomes part of the picture. But it's based, still, on this bottom of the pyramid. But I think the really crucial point, John, about these leaks - and in a sense it was hinted at by Richard in his commentary on it - it's the political impact, nearly more than the scientific impact, that's important. What we've got to remember is that last week there was a private meeting between China, India, Brazil and South Africa, setting a unique agenda for Copenhagen that not all our politicians have grasped. They've even agreed, for example, that if it comes to the crunch, they'll walk out together, if they don't get what they want.
John Humphrys: And, Jonathon Porritt, this is where you and Philip Stott would agree, I take it, that the political implications are potentially profound - indeed, worrying, from your point of view.
Jonathon Porritt: They are profound, there's no question about that, and there are lots of countries that will continue to take a position that reflects their national interests, which may not be aligned with the international scientific consensus, that is correct. And you can see why lots of people might jump on this in order to strengthen the case that they've already made, that they don't want to go along with a new, legally-binding treaty, they don't want deep cuts, they don't want to find a different way of creating wealth in a very low-carbon world. So the political implications of this are huge, which is why it's right that the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel, and the University of East Anglia have agreed now to do a proper analysis, investigation into why this has happened.
John Humphrys: You accused me a moment ago, Philip Stott, of being a bit simplistic. Fair point, fair cop -
Philip Stott: We're all simplistic, I think -
John Humphrys: - the basic law of journalism, don't simplify, don't exaggerate [?]. But we won't go there. The question is whether you believe - and very, very simply, in about 30 seconds - is climate change is happening, and if it is happening, is it man-made?
Philip Stott: There is an element of human influence on climate, unquestionably so. My worry all along has been a very simple one. In so complex a system, managing one factor, at the margins, will not produce a predictable outcome.
John Humphrys: So would you do nothing?
Philip Stott: No, no. Look, I think the agenda's wrong. The agenda in relation to climate change has got to be the age-old agenda of how do we adapt to change - hot, wet, cold or dry -
John Humphrys: So let it happen, and not try to stop it.
Philip Stott: I think it's the putting a vast amount of resources into trying to produce a given result, that is the inherent danger.
John Humphrys: And Jonathon Porritt, a lot of people would agree with that.
Jonathon Porritt: I'm not sure many scientists would. Many scientists would say we have to do both. We have to be prepared to adapt to what happens, but we have to acknowledge that the man-made element in this is the bit that we can manage, and that means mitigating the emissions of greenhouse gases to reduce the combined impact of man-made and natural factors in this changing climate. So I think the consensus is still that we need to do both - mitigation and adaptation.
John Humphrys: Have to end it there, I'm afraid. Jonathon Porritt and Philip Stott - and Richard Black - thank you all very much.
* * *
Justin Webb: Do you feel that we're any clearer, when it comes to the proper impact of the University of East Anglia emails? And by "proper impact", I mean how much weight - is it becoming clear how much weight people, reasonable people, should give them, in their thinking?
Roger Harrabin: I think it's very difficult to say at the moment, Justin, because the mainstream climate scientists I speak to think that the main fundamentals of climate change will not be challenged by the inquiry into this email affair, although the conduct of the scientists will certainly be challenged by it, and the way that scientific consensus is reached in the future. But I think what we're looking at now - and we probably haven't spoken enough about this - is the way that climate change has become this great organising theme, a sort of grand narrative of our age, and what you're seeing in Copenhagen now is the sorts of businesses who previously rejected ideas that we have to cut emissions now buying into climate change science, and from that position, making policies of their own, for a transformational economy, a low-carbon economy. So you had, for instance, 500 businesses last night at Downing Street, presenting a petition to Gordon Brown, saying "Give us a strong deal". And I saw Richard Lambert there, Director-General of the CBI, and said "Look, what about these stolen emails - does this put you off?" And this is what he said.
Richard Lambert: Business people aren't scientists, and they're not climatologists, but they are paid to understand risk. And they see risk in climate change, and they also see an opportunity. And the question is: is it going to be an orderly transition to a low-carbon economy or a disorderly transition? And are investment plans going to be set up in a way that creates opportunity for the future? That's why business has an interest, a real interest, in a successful outcome to the Copenhagen discussions.
Justin Webb: The question there, Roger, is whether that is going to translate into the political debate, and particularly in key places like the United States.
Roger Harrabin: Well, that debate won't happen in time for Copenhagen. President Obama is bringing his package to Copenhagen, and my guess is - it is a guess - my guess is that this affair will not massively affect what happens in Copenhagen itself. I can't be sure about that, but, for certain, unless it's resolved, it will affect matters as they progress through the Senate at the start of next year.
Justin Webb: Roger Harrabin, for the time being, thank you.