Secret UN 'ZOD' climate deliberations: UK battles to suppress details

Lone engineer battles climate science Omertà

Can the Internet help climate scientists? Not everyone thinks so.

"The Internet is a double-edged sword," Met Office scientist Peter Stott told a London courtroom last week. "There's a whole cacophony of voices on blogs, people with different opinions and people very motivated to dig around. But not in the 'big picture' details, frankly. That is not helpful to getting an overall balanced assessment."

Stott had just been asked whether widespread online participation in the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment-of-the-science process might improve it. The open source software development principle, that "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow", came to mind.

The occasion was an Information Tribunal appeal brought by one-man information Inquisition David Holland. The retired Mancunian engineer's previous enquiries were seen by many as the catalyst for the famous "Climategate" email leaks.

"My interest in this was never to do with climate. I'm trained as an engineer, and I know the scientific method," Holland told El Reg in 2011, when he had sought access to large amounts of information from the British climate-science establishment - and was denied. Holland's FOI requests set off a catastrophic sequence of prevarication and obstruction by the responding scientists, which ultimately appears to have triggered the Climategate leaks and massive discomfort for all the researchers involved.

Now it's the turn of Peter Stott of the Met Office to come under Holland's microscope.

I actually felt a bit of human sympathy for Stott; you can bet he would have rather been somewhere else, and it transpires that Holland didn't actually want him there at all. Holland had wanted to cross-examine the head of the UK delegation to the IPCC, a Department of Environment and Climate Change official called David Warrilow, head of climate science and international evidence.

The procedural questions under the spotlight are Warrilow's bailiwick, not Stott's, but Holland was refused his man. Stott, we learned, had been pressganged into appearing by the Met Office's lawyers. Stott also had to defend his and allied organisations' refusal to disclose material on a basis - as we shall see - that's highly questionable. No intelligent person should have to waste his own time, or anyone else's time, defending the indefensible.

And the mere presence of a Met scientist is a bit of a red herring, as it's really the IPCC that is on trial; the case for the defence is being organised by the Treasury solicitor, paid for by you.

Judge Anisa Dhanji was not impressed by the defence's refusal to find someone so very germane to the case to stand up to cross-examination, and demanded that a written statement by Warrilow be included in the record.

So. Here we all were. Why was this happening, exactly?

The case for transparency

The IPCC is the United Nations organisation's process for providing climate advice to policy makers. Every few years it updates this advice, which takes the form of three gigantic reports: one assessing the physical basis (called Working Group 1, or WG1); another considering the impacts (WG2); and the third the mitigation options (WG3).

None of the groups does any original science. They're supposed to write fair summaries of the state of the science - although you'll notice that WG3 already plays with loaded dice: it is about "mitigation", not "adaptation" nor "economic costs" or even "low carbon technological innovation". Each of these groups writes three drafts in a rolling process before they're signed off as official UN policy.

What Holland is seeking the "zero order draft" – aka Draft No. 1 - of Working Group 1. He couldn't care less what's in it, but wants to establish the principle that citizens can see it. As it happens, much of this material is already all over the web. But as Judge Dhanji pointed out, that's by-the-by.

Holland justified his request on the twofold basis that the WG1 zero draft must, and should, be publicly available.

The "must" is the statutory obligation of the UK as a signatory to the Aarhus Convention, or to give it its full title, the "UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters" and by signing up to EC directive 2003/4/EC (PDF) the UK has obliged all of its environmental regulations to be consistent with the Convention. (Not every EU country is a signatory, but the UK is: perhaps a case of civil servants' Euro-enthusiasm coming back to bite them.)

The Met Office argued back that the ZOD is most precious, and if ZOD material were to be disclosed, counsel argued, there would be grave damage to the UK's "international relations". Like the Sneetches, British environment bureaucrats would be stranded on the beaches: shunned, ostracised, and cast into outer darkness. Nobody would want to play with British climate scientists any more.

Yet this particular reason for refusing ZOD is a relatively recent one. It came about in the aftermath of Climategate, and a succession of other climate-related -gates, after which the IPCC's processes came under much-expanded scrutiny. The Inter Academy Council, a panel of dons, made recommendations, amongst others.

The international-relations grounds for climate secrecy first surfaced in 2009 and was used as a reason to knock back FOI requests, from various people including Holland himself. Its origins appear to lie in a request from University of East Anglia climate scientist Tim Osborne in 2009 to IPCC WG1 co-chair Thomas Stocker, which you can read here. Osborne asked Stocker:

UEA must provide evidence to support its reasons for rejecting the original request. I've been asked if we can obtain a further statement about confidentiality ...

... it would be very supportive if someone who currently represents IPCC (or at least IPCC WG1) could indicate that this is also the view/position of the IPCC ...

There are four specific items that we would ideally like to have you view on:
(1) Does the IPCC WG1 expect authors to keep confidential the emails/correspondence/chapter text that they receive from fellow authors during the drafting process?
(2) Would there be an adverse effect on the IPCC WG1 if we were to break this confidentiality? (Note that we might be forced to break it *during* the drafting of the next report)
(3) Would there be an adverse effect on UEA's relationship with IPCC WG1?
(4) In providing views on items (1)-(3), are they your personal view or can we say that they represent IPCC WG1 position?

"Can we say that" is particularly revealing.

It's a common misconception - a sign of the media's deference to scientists, perhaps - that the IPCC consists of a properly appointed actual panel somewhere. As Stott cheerfully confirmed, beyond a small technical administrative support team called the TSU, there isn't really "an IPCC" at all. Self-selecting scientists kick off the assessment process, often gatekeeping material by their friends and colleagues, hard-green campaign groups etc. From the Second Draft stage of the review process the room is full of government officials - the international bureaucracy effectively takes over. The rules are set by the participants, making it up as they go along, Lord of the Flies-style. The Osborne-Stocker exchange illustrates a normal example of one scientist colluding with another in an attempt to prevent the public finding out how the process works.

Stott described in court the process which allows any member of the public to "self-certify" as an Expert Reviewer and join the process at the First Order Draft (ie, the second) stage. He pointed out that Comments generated at this stage were made public last time.

This is true, but bear in mind that the IPCC went to great lengths to avoid Draft Review Comments actually being read last time around - "making public" the comments by depositing an un-indexed paper archive in a library in Massachusetts. In the internet era, that's tantamount to "burying them in a hole in the ground", says Holland. Today, the Comments are indeed officially released on the actual interwebs - but too late to stop errors being spotted, Holland retorted. He cited Glaciergate as an avoidable error.

"On the internet, half of what I've asked for is already there," said Holland. "It's extremely boring stuff, and contains nothing confidential. I can see no reason for it not being released."

Holland's other argument, the "should", is an ethical one. He cited the former IPCC head John Houghton who wrote, "for assessments that inform public policy it is essential that things are seen to be done: the assessment should be completely open and transparent". He contrasted this with "indefinite confidentiality" implicit in refusing access to the ZOD.

Not to mention the small matter of compliance with Aarhus.

The IPCC's defence was twofold: the ZOD work needed to be kept from the public because the participants were learning the ropes, and because it offered a sanctity of private thought required for this vital education. Exposing the scientists to the public at this stage would be like mocking a Learner Driver for knocking over the traffic cones. This would be horribly cruel, defence argued.

"The Zero Order Draft is a training document we can take to a few people to tell us 'are we on the right lines here?' 'have we learned to write a document?' The lessons we learn we can then take on to produce the first First Order Draft to formal review," Stott said.

He emphasised:

"We're learning how to write a report. All of us have to learn that."

And again:

"It's an interim internal document for ourselves to learn how to do this job ..."

Judge Dhanji wondered what the harm was?

Stott replied:

"Well the issue can and does get misused and misrepresented as representative of the IPCC assessment. We've had that in the past with leaked drafts."

And again: "it's an internal document for our own internal use, we can expose our ignorance, expose our learning process, to learn how to write a document. That's the distinction between ZOD and the other drafts," he replied.

"Things that are said in the name of the IPCC during process may come back to haunt them in that people who disagree with the IPCC may scour material for inconsistency," he declared.

Defence counsel raised these concerns, which obliged Judge Dhanji to castigate him for coaching Stott.

"Too much leading," she warned.

Bear in mind that nothing in IPCC rules actually specifies that the ZOD stage is sacrosanct. Participants may prefer it, but rules is rules. Or not.

So Stott answered questions he couldn't, at one point offering his not-so-expert opinion on International Relations.

"It's a bit hypothetical, isn't this?" he replied at one point - surely the truest words spoken all day.

In contrast to the most recent climate-science-related FOI hearing I attended in October (Newbery vs the BBC), the judge was scrupulously exact with both parties, while the two lay judges actively engaged with very good questions, clearly intended to improve their understanding.

In Newbery's case, they asked no questions, and merely scowled. It later transpired that one of the lay judges was a former local government official whose huge redundancy payoff had only been exposed through FOI requests. The other was a former Labour councillor who had received money for campaigning on climate change - and whose views on "deniers" were well known.

It'll be interesting to see the Tribunal's decision in due course. ®

Similar topics

Broader topics

Other stories you might like

  • Corporate investments are a massive hidden source of carbon emissions
    Just because companies are publicly decreasing carbon footprints doesn't mean their cash isn't doing the opposite

    Many large corporations are taking measures to reduce their carbon footprints, but a new report claims that for some, the greatest source of emissions is actually from investments being made with their wealth, and this is undermining their own environmental efforts.

    The Carbon Bankroll report highlights the documented carbon dioxide emissions of a number of large corporations and contrasts these with pollutants being generated as a result of the cash and investments held by those companies, comprising cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities.

    In some instances, this figure is greater than the emissions generated by their own business, demonstrating, in the words of the report, that "climate accomplishments are being undermined by a misaligned financial system that is channeling hundreds of billions of corporate US dollars into the carbon-intensive sectors driving the climate crisis."

    Continue reading
  • Amazon's solution to save the planet: AWS vouchers, training for more eco startups
    Web giant is used to seeing green

    Amazon is giving out funding and support to more startups developing technology that points us in the direct of net-zero emissions, as part of its AWS Clean Energy Accelerator program.

    The accelerator will provide 12 eco-minded companies with guidance on how to get more out of the AWS cloud, by training their employees on machine learning, analytics, and high-performance computing. Each startup will also get up to $100,000 in AWS Activate credits, double what was offered to the program's first cohort of ten startups announced in July 2021.

    Howard Gefen, GM of AWS' energy industry business unit, said in a canned statement that despite climate change being the defining issue of our age, the technology needed to achieve today's grand environmental goals isn't there. The Clean Energy Accelerator program is supposed to help foster the development of this green tech we're lacking.

    Continue reading
  • What will help enterprises meet sustainability goals? Algorithms, says Oracle
    If you want to retain customers, Big Red recommends putting AI in charge

    The pandemic has made people more concerned about sustainability than ever, and businesses are the focuses of their collective ire, with most saying they don't take enterprise sustainability goals (ESGs) seriously. The solution, Oracle says, is to put AIs in charge.

    Oracle's 2022 ESG Global Study surveyed some 11,000 consumers and businesses, and its findings reveal a population overwhelmingly frustrated with a lack of progress toward sustainability initiatives (94 percent). Seventy-eight percent also say that they're frustrated with the lack of progress businesses have made on the ESG front.

    Consumers aren't content to let businesses pat themselves on the back either: nearly half said that they believe businesses have more power than individuals or governments to affect change, and 89 percent said they need to see proof that progress is being made toward ESG goals.

    Continue reading
  • Climate model code is so outdated, MIT starts from scratch
    Julia replaces Fortran as the basis for Earth's new digital twin

    When faced with climate models coded in Fortran in the 1960s and 70s, MIT decided there wasn't any more cobbling together left for the ancient code, so they decided to toss it out and start fresh. 

    It's an ambitious project for MIT professors Raffaele Ferrari and Noelle Eckley Selin, who submitted their Bringing Computation to the Climate Challenge proposal as part of MIT's Climate Grand Challenges (CGC). Out of 100 submissions, MIT picked five projects to fund and support, one of which is Ferrari and Selin's. 

    "The goal of this grand challenge is to provide accurate and actionable scientific information to decision-makers to inform the most effective mitigation and adaptation strategies," the proposal said. 

    Continue reading
  • Swedish firms ink deal to make green hydrogen with wind power
    Last week, colocating datacenters and sewage plants: this week, renewables and H2 producers

    A project to produce green hydrogen using wind power is planned in the mid-east of Sweden, which is expected to have the ability to make up to 240 tons of the stuff on-site every day.

    However, work on the proposed facility is not expected to begin until 2025, and it may not be operational until 2030.

    The project is described as a partnership between wind farm operator WPD Offshore AB and Lhyfe, a green hydrogen producer. The pair said they intend to jointly install a 600MW hydrogen production plant in an industrial area of the municipality of Söderhamm, in the immediate vicinity of the Storgrundet offshore wind farm operated by WPD, to produce green hydrogen that can be used by industry as well as in the transport sector.

    Continue reading
  • Microsoft datacenter to heat homes in Finland
    Turns out the internet is a set of tubes after all

    Microsoft and Finland's largest energy company have partnered to build a new datacenter near Helsinki that will heat homes as it cools servers.

    Microsoft and Fortum made the announcement today after several years of development, with the final location chosen specifically for the purpose of moving waste datacenter heat via existing water pipes to homes and businesses in the surrounding cities of Espoo and Kauniainen, as well as the municipality of Kirkkonummi.

    According to Microsoft, the datacenter could create up to 11,000 jobs, with its purpose being to provide cloud services to the Finnish public sector, businesses, and individuals, as well as reduce response times for local cloud customers. The facility will be part of Microsoft's global cloud complex of more than 200 datacenters.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022