2009年11月开始上演“气候门”的第一季，其关键词就是“hide the decline”（把“下降”掩盖起来）。出处是“气候 门”主角Phil Jones的一封Email，原话是： I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. 【翻译：我刚刚完成了Mike的Nature文章的技巧，也就是把实际的温度添加到每个系列的最后20年（即1981年之后）；对Keith的系列则从1961年开始，以便把下降掩盖起来。——译注：Mike也就是Michael Mann；Keith也就是Keith Briffa。】 这是“气候门”的一个亮点。由于Phil Jones是英国东盎格鲁大学气候中心的主任，而该中心掌管全世界的温度记录，外行或许以为，这封邮件说的是Jones想掩盖1998年以来的温度下降趋势。实际不然，这封邮件写于1999年，那时候“温度停滞”的趋势还不明显。Jones所作的手脚，依然是古温度恢复——也就是树木年轮的数据处理，目标是，如何让“垃圾数据”看起来闪闪发光。细节就是下面这张图。 （图片来源： http://climateaudit.org/2010/06/23/arthur-smiths-trick ） Mann的“古温度恢复曲线”虽然“消灭”了“中世纪温暖期”，但是其它一些人从“树木年轮”得到的曲线却没那么听话，尤其是Briffa（也是IPCC核心作者）的年轮，如果折算成温度的话，那么1960年之后的温度是下降的。这反映的是，树木年轮受太多因素的控制，根本不能直接对应全球温度的变化。（有人或许会问，Mann的算法，即使是随机数据输进去，得到的不也是“曲棍球杆”吗？为什么Briffa的数据得不到？原因可能在于，最近半个世纪年轮变化趋势太明显了，而且这种趋势“推导”出来的结果是明显的温度降低，Mann的模型无济于事。） 而Mann和Jones等人采用的“技巧”，就是把不合心意的数据段砍掉；然后Jones还要加上篡改的数据。 上面这幅图说明的就是这种技巧。看最右面的图，数据来源是2009年的“气候门”文档，里面那根绿线“不听话”地垂了下去，说明“古温度恢复”存在极大的误差； 右数第二张图，来自IPCC报告第四版的有关章节，由Briffa编写，他把绿线1960年之后的数据截掉了，于是维持了“曲棍球杆”头部的形状； 右数第三张图出自IPCC第三版报告（2001年），也就是IPCC正式采用“曲棍球杆”的那份报告。图件是Michael Mann本人所作，他在1940、1960两处截掉了不希望看到的数据，这也就是他的“技巧”； 最左面一图，就是前面所述Jones“气候门”邮件中谈到的图，他不但把不希望看到的一段给砍掉了，还在上面“嫁接”了实际温度测量的数据，并且进行了平滑，让人觉得“古温度恢复”确实完美。 这算不算作假，经常在刊物上登照片的搞生物的、搞材料的研究人员，心里应该有答案。 （Stephen McIntyre这里有详细的分析： Arthur Smith’s Trick ）
“气候门” 第一集邮件中没有发现直接涉及到中国大陆的研究者。不过，涉及到中国温度资料的准确程度问题（Phil Jones在一份邮件中， 抱怨纽约州立大学的Wang Wei-Chyung教授非常“sloppy” ），以及Jones所在的“东盎格鲁大学气候中心”是否按照信息公开法案的要求、向数据索取者提供了原始数据。该大学后来澄清， 数据确实提供给怀疑派的问询者了 。这里又涉及到了Phil Jones的中国合作者李庆祥研究员。 第二集（或者“第二季”）邮件中直接有中国研究人员的通讯邮件， 见上文介绍 。除此而外，Phil Jones、Michael Mann、Ray Bradley和Keith Briffa等IPCC报告操纵者（“曲棍球队”）的邮件中还密集地提到了 兰州寒区旱区环境与工程研究所 杨保研究员的工作。 Ray Bradley 是Mann“曲棍球杆”的共同作者。Keith Briffa和Mann一样，拿手戏是靠树木年轮进行“古温度恢复”；怀疑派指责他只用亚马尔半岛的一棵树就得到了“曲棍球杆”，所以他的绰号是“一棵树”（Keith “one-tree” Briffa）。 这次发生于2003年的邮件往还中， Bradley 等人是讨论Mann等2003年发表在EOS杂志上面关于古温度重建的综述。 涉及到的杨保研究员的工作是关于利用氧同位素恢复古温度的，当时杨保研究员刚和 施雅风院士 发表在 《地球物理学研究通讯》上面 。 Bradley对 杨保研究员的这份工作极为不屑，斥为“垃圾”；说如果引用这篇文章，则是“保存垃圾”。邮件全文： Phil: You commented that the Chinese series of Yang et al (GRL 2002) looked weird. Well, that’s because it’s crap –no further comment on what stuff gets into GRL! You appear to have used their so-called “complete” China record. You really should consider what went into this –2 ice core delta 18O records of dubious relationship totemperature (one is cited as correlating with NW China temperatures at r=0.2-0.4), 3tree ring series, one of which is a delta C-13 record of questionable climatic significance (to be generous). The other series include two records from a Taiwanlake–a carbon/nitrogen isotope and a total organic carbon series (interpreted ashigh=”warm, wet”) and an oxygen isotope series from cellulose in peat!!! ( don’t ask about the C-14 based chronology, interpolated to decadal averages!) I loved this sentence: “Although a quantitative relationship between the proxy records of the Jinchuan peat,the Japan tree-ring series and the Taiwanese sediment records with modern climate data are not given in the original works, the qualitative connectivity with temperature asthe dominant controlling factor has undoubtedly been verified” Oh, undoubtedly!! And these are 4 of the 9 series going into the “complete China”record.. Finally, they use another record based on “phenology” and (somehow) this provides awinter temperature series…. You just shouldn’t grab anything that’s in print and just use it ‘cos it’s there— that just perpetuates rubbish . This series needs to be removed from Figure 2 in the EOS forum piece–and if you included it in your GRL paper, I suggest that you reconsider it. Ray 当时邮件中，Briffa同意Bradley的上述看法，认为杨保等人的数据“和温度的关系很可疑”。但是在Bradley后来2003年的文章中，却把这批数据列为“well calibrated”（很好地校准过的）。杨保的这份“曲棍球”线最终还是包含在 IPCC 2007年报告的“意大利面” 图 里面 （没有提到作者），是其中明显反映“中世纪温暖期”的。 【补充：知道这份中国的数据为什么标成“东亚”吗？2005年的“3361号邮件”这样解释： China shoudl be relabeled as east Asia as it does include some information from Japan and the Tibetan Plateau (L. Thompson) and we don't want to get into some political to-do by calling Tibet "Chinese". ——如果饶毅教授参加了评审，肯定要抗议的。 】 据Stephen McIntyre介绍（如果你还不知道他是谁，请在网上搜索），当初杨保的论文发表之后，McIntyre曾向他索取原始数据。和“曲棍球队”不同，杨保研究员很快提供了原始数据。 正如IPCC报告引用的来自中国的文献只占1.41%（ires.cn/html/download/WGI-AR4%E6%96%87%E7%8C%AE%E7%BB%9F%E8%AE%A1.doc），“气候门”邮件中中国研究者的地位也非常轻微。直观的解释或许是中国的“气候学”远远落后于国外；但是不可忽视的一点是，IPCC报告控制于英美少数研究人员之手，其他人（甚至包括美国一些研究人员）并没有多少发言权。 （以上内容大量参考了Stephen McIntyre的博文： http://climateaudit.org/2011/11/25/behind-closed-doors-perpetuating-rubbish/ ） 【决定不继续写了。其他暴露了核心成员恶劣行为的邮件基本不涉及中国研究人员；涉及到中国研究人员的其他邮件多数是琐事，没必要引邮件。感兴趣的可以看这里： http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?search=China 这里面10位编号的邮件（例如1048799107.txt）属于第一集，四位编号的邮件属于第二集。 】
【补充：下面补充了一些邮件的原文，是从变暖派的网站" Quark Soup by David Appell "上面复制的。】 2009年开始泄露的气候门邮件从根本上改变了“气候争论”的叙述方式。此前“怀疑派”被“全球变暖”集团（IPCC背后的骨干气候研究人员、媒体、非政府环保组织）全面封锁，而“气候门”把“变暖派”的幕后违规操作突然呈现在公众面前，强烈地印证了“怀疑派”多年的指责。 如果说2009年那一批邮件是炸开阵地的迫击炮弹，两年后的这批邮件则像是机枪密集扫射，印证了怀疑派的一直在宣称的每一件指责（ 'They validate EVERYTHING the skeptics have been saying' ）。 上面链接的这个博客摘录了一些有代表性的邮件，我这里挑几条，加上中文说明。不要指望媒体深入报导这个事件——尤其是中文媒体。中文的记者还不具备分析这类复杂事件的能力。 ======================================= 1. “气候门”丑闻主角 Phil Jones 要求其下属气候研究人员不准对“全球变暖导致气候灾难”表示异议 。 2. 变暖分子承认， Steve McIntyre（怀疑派）对Mann的“曲棍球杆”的批评是正确的，即，不论什么数据输到Mann的模型里面，出来的都是“曲棍球杆”。 3. 变暖分子承认， Mann对“曲棍球杆”越辩越糟 。 4. IPCC作者Jagadish Shukla承认， IPCC的气候模型既不能描述、又不能模拟气候变化过程，那么政策制定者怎能据此进行上万亿美元的决策 。 5. Phil Jones 早就坦诚气候模型不准确 。 6. Phil Jones 要求删除邮件，以规避《信息公开法》 （Jones的这个做法在气候门第一批邮件即已暴露）。 7. 美国能源部向Jones保证不公开温度原始数据 （这个问题涉及到温度“均一化”过程的可信性）。 8. IPCC作者Peter Thorne承认， 他们为了政治欺骗而操弄科学，这种做法从长远看并不聪明 。 9. 瑞士气候研究者Heinz Wanner 在审议IPCC报告的时候，对Mann的“曲棍球杆”提出批评，尽管他屡次进行陈述，其评语仍然被IPCC定为“不重要”。此时后来捅到德国《明镜》周刊，而Wanner识大体、明大局，写信表示他为了“不伤害气候科学”拒绝了《明镜》采访 。 10. Mann承认， 现在对“全球平均温度异常”的意义并不了解 （这也是Pielke Sr——被变暖分子列为“怀疑派”——的观点）。 11. Phil Jones 在哥本哈根气候会议前夕用片面歪曲的结论误导书面采访的记者 。 12. Jones 要求 全面系统地删除邮件 。 13. 变暖分子 1998年就在期待高盛的合作 （高盛是现在全球变暖运动的重要推手）。 14. Jones 承认“控制升高2度”的说法毫无科学依据 。 15. 美国顶级气候研究人员 Tom Wigley早知道Mann的“古温度恢复”纯属科学 垃圾 。 16. Jones 承认BBC对“全球变暖”的宣传报导片面偏向变暖分子。 ====================== 【 补充一些邮件句子的原文，是从变暖派的网站" Quark Soup by David Appell "上面复制的。作者把这些邮件分成三类：“有麻烦的”，“科学家终究是科学家”（即，他们痛苦地面对着不支持他们结论的证据），以及“科学家也是人”。作者标出有部分——也就是一条——邮件句子的字面意义和原有语境的不一致。但是，挑出来的多数句子都有明确的所指，并不是那么含混的。 】 Troublesome: 5131 Shukla/IGES: It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability. 1939 Thorne/MetO: Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary 3066 Thorne: I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run. 1611 Carter: It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by a select core group. 2884 Wigley: Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC Update (11/23/11): I fell into FOIA's trap of taking this excerpt out of context. See my post here . 4755 Overpeck: The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid what’s included and what is left out. 4241 Wilson: I thought I’d play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I could ‘reconstruct’ northern hemisphere temperatures. The reconstructions clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend. I guess this is precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about. 3373 Bradley: I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year “reconstruction”. 1104 Wanner/NCCR: In my review I crit cized the Mann hockey tick My review was classified “unsignificant” even I inquired several times. Now the internationally well known newspaper SPIEGEL got the information about these early statements because I expressed my opinion in several talks, mainly in Germany, in 2002 and 2003. I just refused to give an exclusive interview to SPIEGEL because I will not cause damage for climate science. 2009 Briffa: I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of all present reconstructions, yet sounding like a pro greenhouse zealot here! 4716 Adams: Somehow we have to leave the thinking OK, climate change is extremely complicated, BUT I accept the dominant view that people are affecting it, and that impacts produces risk that needs careful and urgent attention. 3062 Jones: We don’t really want the bullshit and optimistic stuff that Michael has written We’ll have to cut out some of his stuff. 1485 Mann: the important thing is to make sure they’re loosing the PR battle. That’s what the site is about. 2267 Wilson: Although I agree that GHGs are important in the 19th/20th century (especially since the 1970s), if the weighting of solar forcing was stronger in the models, surely this would diminish the significance of GHGs. it seems to me that by weighting the solar irradiance more strongly in the models, then much of the 19th to mid 20th century warming can be explained from the sun alone. 2440 Jones: I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process. 2094 Briffa: UEA does not hold the very vast majority of mine anyway which I copied onto private storage after the completion of the IPCC task. Scientists-being-scientists: 1788 Jones: There shouldn’t be someone else at UEA with different views – at least not a climatologist. 5111 Pollack: But it will be very difficult to make the MWP go away in Greenland. 0310 Warren: The results for 400 ppm stabilization look odd in many cases As it stands we’ll have to delete the results from the paper if it is to be published. 2775Jones: I too don’t see why the schemes should be symmetrical. The temperature ones certainly will not as we’re choosing the periods to show warming. 1682 Wils: What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably 4693 Crowley: I am not convinced that the “truth” is always worth reaching if it is at the cost of damaged personal relationships 2733 Crowley: Phil, thanks for your thoughts – guarantee there will be no dirty laundry in the open. 2095 Steig: He’s skeptical that the warming is as great as we show in East Antarctica — he thinks the “right” answer is more like our detrended results in the supplementary text. I cannot argue he is wrong. 0953 Jones: This will reduce the 1940-1970 cooling in NH temps. Explaining the cooling with sulphates won’t be quite as necessary. 4944 Haimberger: It is interesting to see the lower tropospheric warming minimum in the tropics in all three plots, which I cannot explain. I believe it is spurious but it is remarkably robust against my adjustment efforts. 4938 Jenkins/MetO: By coincidence I also got recently a paper from Rob which says “London’s UHI has indeed become more intense since the 1960s esp during spring and summer”. 0896 Jones: I think the urban-related warming should be smaller than this, but I can’t think of a good way to argue this. I am hopeful of finding something in the data that makes by their Figure 3. 1583 Wilson: any method that incorporates all forms of uncertainty and error will undoubtedly result in reconstructions with wider error bars than we currently have. These many be more honest, but may not be too helpful for model comparison attribution studies. We need to be careful with the wording I think. 4165 Jones: what he has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene! I reckon this can be saved by careful wording. 3994 Mitchell/MetO Is the PCA approach robust? Are the results statistically significant? It seems to me that in the case of MBH the answer in each is no 4369 Cook: I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly can not be defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the science move ahead. 0999 Hulme: My work is as Director of the national centre for climate change research, a job which requires me to translate my Christian belief about stewardship of God’s planet into research and action. 3653 Hulme: He is a Christian and would talk authoritatively about the state of climate science from the sort of standpoint you are wanting. 2423 Lanzante/NOAA: While perhaps one could designate some subset of models as being poorer in a lot of areas, there probably never will be a single universally superior model or set of models. We should keep in mind that the climate system is complex, so that it is difficult, if not impossible to define a metric that captures the breath of physical processes relevant to even a narrow area of focus. 1982 Santer: there is no individual model that does well in all of the SST and water vapor tests we’ve applied. 0850 Barnett: clearly, some tuning or very good luck involved. I doubt the modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer 5066 Hegerl: So using the 20th c for tuning is just doing what some people have long suspected us of doing and what the nonpublished diagram from NCAR showing correlation between aerosol forcing and sensitivity also suggested. 4443 Jones: Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds. 4085 Jones: GKSS is just one model and it is a model, so there is no need for it to be correct. FOI, temperature data] Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data. Scientists are people too: Jones: The jerk you mention was called Good(e)rich who found urban warming at all Californian sites. 0810 Mann: I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s doing, but its not helping the cause 4184 Jones: Keep up the good work! Even though it’s been a mild winter in the UK, much of the rest of the world seems coolish – expected though given the La Nina. Roll on the next El Nino!
【补充：更全面的、代表性的邮件请见这里的摘录： http://junkscience.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0-is-here/ 。我打算 翻译一下 。 】 【补充：Pielke Jr.教授从邮件中看到，他当初客观评价“全球变暖”和飓风之间关系的论文是如何被IPCC背后的黑手党们拒之门外的。 http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/11/foia2011-on-shameful-paper.html 】 【补充：如果想了解更全面的信息，可以去读 “Watts up with that” ——很有影响的“怀疑论者”网站。 这里要向中国的相关研究人员 Li Qingxiang（李庆祥） 和 Ren Guoyu（任国玉） 致敬。他们试图向Phil Jones和IPCC说明热岛效应对温度记录的影响，但是被冷冰冰地拒绝了。——“气候门”第一版邮件就已经暴露出来，IPCC是控制在Phil Jones等一小撮气候研究的Mafia手里，参加编写的人虽多，但是大多数人对报告内容并没有什么影响。 】 【补充：这里面极为恶劣的是，那个圈子里的核心研究人员自己都不相信 Michael Mann的“曲棍球杆”把戏 ，却任由IPCC等国际机构拿Mann的那幅图对公众进行欺诈： Bradley （Michael Mann“曲棍球杆”“模型”的共同作者）: I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year “reconstruction”. Cook: I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly cannot be defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the science move ahead. 】 这批邮件更多暴露了“顶级”“气候学家”们掩盖数据、掩盖不确定性、欺骗公众、破坏科研规范的行为。 这批邮件有中国学者的email（是正面角色），试图说服Phil Jones热岛效应对温度记录的影响： cc: liqx@cma.xxx date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:16:37 +0800 from: =?gb2312?B?JUQ1JUM1JUMwJUYyJUMzJUY0IA==?= limmy@xxx subject: Re:Re: thank you to: p.jones@xxx Dear Phil, Again I find that the emails from my CMA mail boxes can not get to you. From attaches please find the data of 42 urban stations and 42 rural stations (by your list) and a reference of homogenization of the data. we have tested and adjusted the abrupt discontinuities of the data during 1951-2001, but the following years (2002-2004) has only been quality controled and added to the end of the series, but we found the relocation during these 3 years have minor effects on the whole series in most of the stations. I partly agree with what Prof. Ren said. and we have done some analysis on the urban heat island effect in China during past years. The results are differnt with Ren’s. But I think different methods, data, and selection of the urban and rural stations would be the most important causes of this. So I think it is high time to give some new studies and graw some conclusion in this topic. I hope we can make some new achives on this both on global scale and in China. Best Qingxiang —– Original Message —– From: “Phil Jones” p.jones@xxxx To: “Rean Guoyoo” guoyoo@xxxx Cc: “ %D5%C5%C0%F2%C3%F4 ″ limmy@xxx, liqx@cma.xxx Sent: 2007-09-24 16:25:59 +0800 Subject: Re: thank you Dear Guoyu, I think I emailed you from America last week. I am away again next week, but here this week. I do think that understanding urban influences are important. I will wait for Dr Li Qingxiang to send some data, but there is no rush, as I am quite busy the next few weeks. Best Regards Phil At 00:59 20/09/2007, you wrote: The following message was returned back when I sent via cma site. I send it again via this site. I also forwarded this message to Dr, Li Qingxiang. Regards, Guoyu Dear Phil, Thank you for your message of Sept 11, 2007. I have just been back from the US. Sorry for the delayed response. I noted the discussion on blog sites. This is indeed a big issue in the studies of climate change. In the past years, we did some analyses of the urban warming effect on surface air temperature trends in China, and we found the effect is pretty big in the areas we analyzed. This is a little different from the result you obtained in 1990. I think there might be at least three reasons for the difference: (1) the areas chosen in the analyses are different; (2) the time periods analyzed are obviously varied, and the aft-1990 period is seeing a more rapid warming in most areas of China; (3) the rural stations used for the analyses are different, and we used some stations which we think could be more representative for the baseline change. We have published a few of papers on this topic in Chinese. Unfortunately, when we sent our comments to the IPCC AR4, they were mostly rejected. It is my opinion that we need to re-assess the urbanization effect on surface air temperature records for at least some regions of the continents. I am glad that you are going to redo it using the updated dataset. I expect you to obtain the new outcome. As for the dataset, I believe that Dr. Li Qingxiang could give you a hand. He and his group conducted a lot work of detection and adjustment of the inhomogeneities in the past years, and the adjusted and the raw datasets are all stored and managed in his center. The datasets we used are also from his center. I’d be happy to discuss some issues with you late, but I would not necessarily be as a co-author because my contribution would be rather minor. Best regards, Guoyu NCC, Beijing Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today! Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 xxxx School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 xxxxx University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxx NR4 7TJ UK
据 CEN 报道，美国宾夕法尼亚州立大学2011年8月23日声明，美国国家科学基金会调查给出的结果，已经证明气候科学家迈克尔·曼（Michael Mann）曾经被指控存在科研中存在不端行为的“罪名”不成立。迈克尔·曼是美国宾州州立大学地球系统科学中心主任，是一位气候变化怀疑论者，也是一直存在争议的过去千年温度波动“曲棍球曲线”模型的提出者。? 迈克尔·曼的这个曲线是在1998、1999年他博士毕业前后的两篇论文（一篇《自然（Nature）》杂志，一篇《地球物理学评论通讯（Geophysics Review Letters）》杂志））上发表的，? （Mann, M. E., R. S. Bradley, and M. K. Hughes (1998), Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries, Nature, 392, 779–787. Mann, M. E., R. S. Bradley, and M. K. Hughes (1999), Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: Inferences, uncertainties, and limitations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 26, 759–762.）? 而迈克尔·曼和他的一群同事（MBH中的M指Mann，B指Bradley，H指Hughes--后两者是Mann的同事和学生，此外还包括其他一批学生）则共同组成了一个团队：“曲棍球团队（Hockey Team）”。原有的IPCC核心科研团队——英国东英吉利大学（University of East Anglia）气候研究中心主任琼斯和布里法等人则很快加入了曲棍球团队，当了随从。从此IPCC的核心科学团队就完成了重组。似乎人类活动导致全球变暖学说是板上钉钉，无可置疑了。? 2009年有黑客入侵了University of East Anglia的气候研究中心（CRU, Climatic Research Unit），获取并将上千份电子邮件和文档公之于众，引发了“气候门”事件，其中披露出来的文件表明，气候学家们在讨论气候模型构建技术（climate modeling techniques）的时候使用了“骗局（trick）”这样的词。这件事情引发了广泛的质疑，怀疑主义者们认为这就是科学家们篡改数据来保证其结论正确的证据。 这件事大大鼓励了全球变暖的怀疑者们。后来美国弗吉尼亚州首席检察官肯·古奇涅利（Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli）向弗吉尼亚大学（UVA, University of Virginia）发出了一个民事调查传票（CID, Civil Investigative Demand），调查关于气候学家迈克尔·曼（Michael Mann）的有关信息。迈克尔·曼曾经在弗吉尼亚大学工作，后来在宾夕法尼亚州大学（Pennsylvania State University）创办了地球生态系统科学中心（Earth Systems Science Center）。他正是“气候门”当中多封争议邮件的作者。批评家将这些电子邮件作为证明迈克尔·曼篡改数据的证据。 NSF检察长在 调查报告 中指出：“没有直接证据能够表明迈克尔·曼他捏造了原始数据用于其研究结果,或伪造原始数据应用于自己的研究结果”。对于迈克尔·曼统计方法的争论,报告称这并不构成科学不端行为的证据。 迈克尔·曼告诉CEN，他对NSF检察官的调查结果感到非常高兴，使自己和其他气候科学家根据气候变化已经得到的结果没有现实基础的各种诽谤之词不攻自破。美国自然科学基金会紧随宾州州立大学的调查,澄清了迈克尔·曼2010年的“不当行为”。宾州州立大学副校长Henry C. Foley认为，很明显，NSF报告认为迈克尔·曼教授从任何一个专业的角度来看他的研究都是经得起考验的，整个调查过程不仅没有使宾州州立大学失色，反而为宾州州立大学的可信度添了彩。在2006年的一项报告中美国国立研究委员会支持迈克尔·曼的基本结论,坚持20世纪后期，北半球气候变暖至少是近1000年来前所未有的。
搞基础研究的科学家的工作很少有人去验证和重复，对这些科学家工作的信任来自于对其科研素质和科研道德信任。然而在每个科学家的工作中，为了更好的自圆其说，必定对数据做部分的取舍，当然在很大程度上这种取舍是可以的，不过你的交代清楚取舍的标准。气候门事件中的科学家也对数据进行了太多的取舍，取舍的标准看来主要是以 rising temperatures 为依据，而且这种取舍没有完全告诉公众和同行，这是违背科学精神的。但有时候承认这种错误实在是需要莫大的勇气。目前，东英吉利大学原气候中心的主任虽然已经有点抑郁症的表现，但依旧为原来的工作和结果申辩。 Science 19 February 2010: Vol. 327. no. 5968, p. 934 DOI: 10.1126/science.327.5968.934 Prev | Table of Contents | Next News of the Week Newsmaker Interview: Embattled U.K. Scientist Defends Track Record of Climate Center Eli Kintisch Phil Jones is at the center of a swirling controversy over e-mails stolen or leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom, which he has directed since 2004. In the 3 months since those messages came to light, Jones has been battered by criticism that the e-mails reveal a failure to share climate data publicly and an effort to prevent certain papers from being cited in international climate change reports. He's stepped down temporarily from his job to allow for an independent inquiry, and he's been treated for depression. But Jones hasn't walked away from the battlefield. I've got no agenda here. I'm not a politician. I'm just a scientist, he told Science during an interview last week from the University of East Anglia. Jones declined to talk about allegations concerning the hacked e-mails, citing the ongoing investigation. But he forcefully defended the quality of the center's efforts to create a global temperature database, which points to an average 0.1C warming of Earth's land areas per decade since 1900. That work earned him a 2002 medal from the European Geosciences Union, among other acclaim. Here are some highlights from the interview. An extended version of this interview can be found here . Q: If the CRU data set were set aside, are there other data that corroborate your findings about rising temperatures? P.J.: There's the two other data sets produced in the U.S. . But there's also a lot of other evidence showing that the world's warming, by just looking outside and seeing glaciers retreating, the reduction of sea ice ... overall, the reduction of snow areas in the Northern Hemisphere, the earlier breakup of sea ice and some land ice, and river ice around the world, and the fact that spring seems to be coming earlier in many parts of the world. Q: Critics say that your producing the same trends as the NASA and NOAA data sets is insignificant given that you start with the same raw data. CREDIT: UEA P.J.: There are differences. The two American sets use a larger number of stations than we do. They both use about 7200 stations, and we use about 5000 stations. But we look at that data in different ways and have different techniques for deciding whether the stations are used or not. Q: One of the real challenges is going from the available raw data to the final temperature sets that you release. Do you feel that you have released enough information that someone could repeat that exercise? P.J.: Yes, I feel they have. have been peer-reviewed; we've been doing this work for almost 30 years now. has something called the Global Historical Climatology Network, and people can download the station datait's essentially the same data, it may not be exactly the samethey could go and take that data, make their own choices about what stations to use, ... they could reproduce their own gridded temperature data. A lot of the people at the moment criticize what we do but anything constructive and new. Q: A sticking point with some of your critics has been how much of the data isn't available. P.J.: We've been putting up more of the data online on the U.K. Met Office site 80% of the stations we use. You can download the data and you can download the program we use to produce the data sets. Q: One concern of your critics is whether there are adequate procedures in place to assure the quality of this data. P.J.: That's the sort of work we've done in the past and published in the papers. Q: You've emphasized that you have a small staff. Would more people checking these data be a useful thing? P.J.: It could be useful, but then we've got to bring them up to speed in terms of what we're looking for. ... The national meteorological services are doing quality control on this data before it even reaches us. Q: When during your career has pressure from outsiders to criticize or, as you would put it, distort your work become significant? P.J.: In 2007, the blog sites started then. I had responded to some of these people in years earlier but had given up. ... I just didn't have the time to respond. They didn't seem to want to understand. Q: One of the skeptics who wanted station data was Warwick Hughes. What did you mean when you wrote in an e-mail to him that even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. P.J.: I'd rather not go there. It was an e-mail written in haste. Q: When did the pressure become severe? P.J.: In July 2009, we received 60 Freedom of Information requests in a few dayseach request was for five countries' worth of data. We probably should've responded to these requests in a different way. We stand by the science that we were doing. Maybe we need to be more proactive and open about releasing data. But the 60 requests were just too much to deal with at that one time. Q: Do you have any regrets about how you handled the chapter you've co-authored in the 2007 IPCC report? P.J.: No regrets, but I don't really want to go talking about IPCC. I stand by that chapter. Q: Why are you speaking out now? P.J.: It just seems like the right time. It was too difficult back in November and December.
http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2010/02/nature_editor_resigns_from_cli.html Nature editor resigns from climate-gate review-February 12, 2010 Natures editor in chief has stepped down from the Russell Review inquiry into aspects of the climate-gate emails, just hours after the inquiry team was unveiled. Philip Campbell stood down after it emerged he told a Chinese reporter last year that the scientists at the centre of the climate-gate row have behaved as researchers should. A key aspect of the review headed by Muir Russell is whether scientists at the University of East Anglia followed proper scientific procedures. In a statement released to the media yesterday, Campbell said I made the remarks in good faith on the basis of media reports of the leaks. As I have made clear subsequently, I support the need to for a full review of the facts behind the leaked e-mails. There must be nothing that calls into question the ability of the independent Review to complete this task, and therefore I have decided to withdraw from the team. Russell added, I have spoken to Philip Campbell, and I understand why he has withdrawn. I regret the loss of his expertise, but I respect his decision. Russells team yesterday announced the scope of their investigation, which was triggered by a vast number of emails stolen from the University of East Anglias Climatic Research Unit and published online. Some of the questions they are seeking to answer involve research published in Nature. Although Campbell and Russell faced questions over the independence of their review yesterday , it was the emergence of the Campbells interview with Chinese state radio that forced his resignation. The scientists have not hidden the data. If you look at the emails there is one or two bits of language that are jargon used between professionals that suggest something to outsiders that is wrong, Campbell said . In fact the only problem there has been has been some problem with the official restrictions on their ability to disseminate their data. Otherwise they have behaved as researchers should.
标签: 气候门
