TRANSCRIPT

BBC Radio World Service Europe Today

Monday 23 November 2009  

Climate change – Robert Watson, Jochem Marotzke

James Coomarasamy, presenter: Well, we can talk about that now because we're joined live on the line by Professor Robert Watson, Professor of Environmental Science at the University of East Anglia, from where these leaked e-mails emanated. He's chief scientific advisor to the Department of the Environment here in Britain. We're also joined from Hamburg by Professor Jochem Marotzke, Director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology there.  Professor Watson, let's start by you. I know, obviously discussions about how and the timing of these leaks, but have they… to what extent have they damaged your case?

 

Professor Robert Watson, Chief Scientific Advisor, Defra: They should not have damaged the case at all, in so far as this is one data-set; these scientists are world-class, they have not manipulated the data. But there's also two other major data-sets in the United States: one by Noah, one by Nasa. They're global data-sets just like the UEA data-sets and they come up to basically the same results. They all show a significant trend of warming throughout the earth's surface. It's also consistent with glaciers melting, sea-level rising and changing precipitation patterns. 'So, basically, there should be no reason to undermine the basic scientific evidence.

 

JC: Professor Marotzke, you're concerned, though, aren't you that the potential for damaging public opinion by perhaps removing some facts that may not be convenient, shall we say, for those wishing to push hard on tackling climate change?

 

Professor Jochem Marotzke, Managing Director, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology: [unclear – technical error] …if you really put all the cards on the table and if you do the analysis to the best scientific standards you can. Now, on this particular case, there is no reason to doubt that people put in the best science they could, and I agree with Professor Watson that the [unclear] of the data and the publication of some of the e-mails really does not undermine the evidence that there is man-made climate change.

 

JC: Well, it's not so much the evidence, is it, it is the public relations that is at stake here, isn't it?

 

JM: On that I would agree that there are some statements, certainly when taken out of context, I can see that they could be read in a way that some people would claim ah, see, they have something to hide. And I think there's only one strategy we as scientists have and that is to maintain the highest standards in what we do. And sometimes we find things that make the public debate more difficult. That is so, but if we do, if we find things that make the public discourse more difficult, we simply have to say that, because our scientific credibility is really the highest goal.

 

JC: Professor Watson?

 

RW: Yes, in fact Lord Lawson, former chancellor of the exchequer, has called for a public inquiry. The University of East Anglia fully agrees with this. First it was a hack in, therefore, it's an illegal act, so we need to look into that. But, much more important, we want to expose all of the information we can to a public inquiry with an independent scientific group, to show there has been absolutely no deletion of data and no manipulation of data. It's absolutely critical that everyone is open and transparent.

 

JC: But has there ever been a sense in which scientists in this debate have been concerned at the way it has gone, and have perhaps not given certain data as much prominence as it might have had?

 

RW: No, I would argue through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is a very open and transparent process involving experts throughout the world, that these experts have analysed all of the available data, looked at all of the theoretical models, assessed what the evidence is of a changing climate – not just surface temperature – compared to the model results, and they concluded in the Fourth Assessment Report that it was very likely, 90% certain or more, that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is due to human activity. So this data has been looked at, it’s been peer reviewed and it’s been assessed. But, clearly, we need to be even more open and transparent with all of these data-sets.

 

JC: And the accusation has been that you have not, or some of the scientists whose e-mails have been leaked, have not made their data available to scientists with whom they disagree.

 

RW: Well, one of the problems that the University of East Anglia has is that they don't own all of the raw data. The raw data is actually owned by different meteorological services throughout the world, and have not been allowed to release that data under the Freedom Information Act because they don't own the data. So what the university has done now, it's got… it's contacted every meteorological service in the world and asked for permission to make all the raw data available. So the university and scientists involved would like to be as open and transparent as possible, but we do need the approval of the different meteorological services.

 

JC: OK, gentlemen, we have to leave it there. Professor Robert Watson, University of East Anglia, and Professor Jochem Marotzke, from the Max Planck Institute in Hamburg, thank you both for joining us.

 

Ends