I keep meaning to write something substantive about the theft of emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, but my day job does sometime intervene. (Over six hundred postdoc applications in theoretical physics, but not to worry — only about 400 of them are in areas related to my interests.) There are some good discussions at Time and Foreign Policy, and you can’t poke your nose into the science blogosphere without reading someone’s take on the issue.
My own take is: what in the world is the big deal? Indeed, I would go so far as to ask: what could possibly be the big deal? Most of the noise has simply been nonsensical, focusing on misunderstandings of what scientists mean by the word “trick” and similar deep issues. And some people got upset when a dodgy paper was accepted by a journal, and they discussed giving the journal a cold shoulder. Cry me a river.
But I don’t really want to defend the scientists involved, because I’m not informed enough about who they are and what they did. For all I know, they may be very nasty and unethical human beings. (Actually that’s not true; I know Michael Mann, and he’s one of the nicest guys you’ll ever meet.) And I see no reason not to do a thorough investigation, and hand out appropriate sanctions if there’s real evidence of wrongdoing.
What baffles me is the idea that this changes the conversation about climate change in any way. This isn’t a case like Jan Hendrik Schon, the rogue physicist who rose to prominence on the basis of falsified data, and was later exposed. The job of monitoring the climate is one that has been taken up by more than just one or two groups of people. There have been thousands of peer-reviewed papers that have provided evidence of global warming. Not to mention common sense; when the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has shot up dramatically over the last century, and the temperature has done the same thing, it takes some willful stubbornness to avoid the obvious conclusion. All of the noise we’re hearing about “Climategate” is based on politics, not on science.
And that’s what really puzzles me. I understand the non-scientific motivations of certain climate denialists; in the abstract, they don’t want to accept that the unfettered actions of capitalism can ever have any deleterious effects, and in the concrete, many of them are paid by oil companies. (See this charming “letter to the American Physical Society,” whose handful of signatories includes “Roger Cohen, former Manager, Strategic Planning, ExxonMobil.”) Those are powerful incentives to ignore the evidence.
But what is the incentive on the other side supposed to be? What exactly is the motivation for the nefarious conspiracy of people who are supposedly plotting to mislead the world about global warming? What do the people counting oysters get out of this?
Are there a lot of people out there who think that scientists as a group (since the vast majority of scientists appreciate the problems of global warming) have knee-jerk reactions against technology and industry? Let me propose another motivation for whatever corners the East Anglia group might have contemplated cutting: they’ve seen the data, they know what’s happening to the planet, and they’re terrified of what the consequences might be. They know that the other side is motivated by non-scientific concerns, and they want to fight back as hard as they can, both for the good of humanity and for the integrity of science. There’s no question that scientists can go overboard, pulling the occasional shenanigans in the pursuit of their less lofty goals. (Like, you know, other human beings.) But nobody wants to believe that we’re facing a looming global ecological catastrophe. They believe it because that’s what the data imply.
DaveH: “climate variation is a lot easier to predict in the long term than weather in the short term.”
It’s certainly a lot easier to claim that, because most of us will be long dead by the time the predictions can be tested.
I think nobody here will disagree that global warming is a fact. We can’t ignore the geological record of ice ages coming and receding. The whole problem is the assignment of this natural phenomenon to human activity. It’s not supported by the data.
The problem with climate gate is that it completely invalidates the trust most of us had in climate scientists.
Ask yourself this, what honest scientist would rather commit a crime by deleting emails and data subjected to a FOI request then release that data for outside verification? How on Earth can you expect anyone to trust such a scientist?
OXO, you pulled that “it’s not supported by the data” out of your arse.
Rather than unsupported assertions
Tim, no most of us are not so easily fooled by an obvious smear campaign based on misinterpretation of selected sections of stolen emails taken out of context. At least I hope not.
Ask yourself this, what honest scientist would rather commit a crime by deleting emails and data subjected to a FOI request then release that data for outside verification?
Tim, why do you beat your wife?
DaveH,
You are a Troll And a True Believer..
Global warming doesn’t exist. It’s a 150+ year old conspiracy involving tens of thousands of scientists, from hundred of countries, speaking dozens of languages, and getting their money from myriad national, local, educational, corporate, and private sources. Despite the fact that most of these people do not know each other, many of them do not like one another, and despite that their career goals are frequently in conflict with one another, they have banded together in monolithic agreement, forming an elaborate, untraceable conspiracy stretching across three centuries all just to inconvenience big business and secure themselves unexceptional-paying jobs in research and at universities. What’s worse, they’ve cleverly published their so-called “findings” in peer-reviewed publications readily available for anyone with a library card to fact-check and review.
I won’t be fooled by all of the dispassionately accumulated, carefully cross-checked mountains of “data.” I put my faith in the energy company magnates and the congressional representatives they sponsor who assure me global warming does not exist.
A lot of nonsense in this thread. The net is drowning in denier hokum.
From the scientific american web site: Seven answers to climate contrarian nonsense.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense
About “climategate”:
Climate Denial Crock of the Week – Climategate: Smacking the Hack Attack – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P70SlEqX7oY
There are other episodes of Climate Denial of the Week. Well worth watching.
I particularly like this one: The Great Petition Fraud: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P8mlF8KT6I&feature=related
It exposes the fundamental dishonesty of the climate denial industry.
I’m glad I posted those comments. This would have much more credence if the politicians like Al Gore were not involved AND positioned to make billions off it (yes, that would be Billions with a B). And Jeb can kiss my arse – I’m passionate not angry. Well, maybe I am a little angry, getting lied too isn’t cool.
Absolutely everything is motivated by money, scientists as much as politicians are pursuing the straight line to the dollars. I don’t blame most of them because they’ve been manipulated as well. Scientists are (and have always been) puppets of the establishment – only a few a generation are able to break out and do real science.
I watched a video on TED.com where a photographer had setup cameras to watch the various ice sheets around the world. He indicated that this was clear evidence that global warming is occurring, except….it wasn’t. What it did prove was that in the summer the ice melts and in the winter the water freezes! I couldn’t believe what I was watching.
And what I love is that “all scientists agree” on this point, how many times have I heard that? Again, not true – all scientists do not agree. I guess I’ll break down and try to find out about the documents that were stolen because it is obvious that Discover has its head up its arse (at least the author of the article).
The SIMPLE reality is this, if global warming is occurring at the rate which has been proposed shorelines around the world would ALREADY be gone – in fact I believe that Florida would be completely gone. It really is that simple – things just don’t add up – at all!
Again, show me where global warming has raised the ocean levels which is the number one by-product of global warming. Let’s face it, we are all being manipulated into believing this is a crisis so we can be pushed into a corner – sort of like the bank bailout. Carbon credits will allow a single group of people to have a lever over every nation and every person on the planet – that’s the end game of this farce.
If it was a serious problem why would developing nations like China be given a free pass to continue to create CO2 polution on a massive scale? Rhetorical question, we know why. Once politicians and governments are involved there is no credibility, in this case it was started by them and scientists were “brought on” to confirm these ideas. Does anyone believe that Al Gore is honorable? How about Bush? How ’bout Obama? All different sides of the same coin.
I wouldn’t be surprised if we start lighting nuclear fires under the ice-caps (we probably are already) just to make sure the agenda gets sold!
To answer DaveH about “honest scientists” – for the money, that’s why. How long did the Geocentric theory of our solar system last AFTER it was clear the Earth was not the center of the solar system? Hundreds of years because it served the interest of the powers that be, in this case the church.
Anyway, it is fun to debate and have the discussion. Discover is a mainstream publication, there is no doubt what drives this enterprise and what they are motivated by.
And one final tidbit – check out Gore’s investments and corporate affiliations and you’ll see that he is in it for the money – period. Gore is a huge, gigantic POS just like his father was and if he says it – then it ain’t true. Wake up people, don’t be lemmings listening to puppet scientists and gubmint officials tell you the world is coming to and end because of global warming and the only way to stop it is to build a carbon credit based global economic system.
Soon enough we’ll be taxed for the CO2 we emit when breathing, this then becomes a a global lever against people and entire nations. After that what’s to stop a decision that China or the US or Africa or anywhere is creating too much CO2 and that mini-exterminations must happen in order to save the planet and the rest of us. Call it paranoia if you want but I think it is the logical progression and the predetermined outcome of this BS….
I’m calling Putin to see if I can buy some of those carbon credits they have.
Right, one final point. Many of the politicians that believe in global warming also believe the Earth is 6000 years old and God took Sunday off!!! He (God) is also maintaining a book about me – everything I say and do is in the book, waiting for judgement day! I bet it isn’t long before the church gets involved (maybe they have already I don’t know) and starts spewing the Global warming ideas – gubmint will pull them in to help sell the lie. Lots of synergy between the gubmint and the church, how convenient for them.
By 2010, the US citizens will be paying carbon based taxes – not corporations, that’s part of the farce. How do we explain the fact that for over 100 years the combustion engine hasn’t really changed at all! Yet every other aspect of science has advanced by leaps and bounds?
Er – it’s the oil magnates who have the money, not scientists at the University of East Anglia!
ROTFL.
“The SIMPLE reality is this, if global warming is occurring at the rate which has been proposed shorelines around the world would ALREADY be gone – in fact I believe that Florida would be completely gone. It really is that simple – things just don’t add up – at all!”
Please show your work. Oh, i forgot – you pulled this made-up “factoid” out of your ass.
http://www.realclimate.org for all the facts
UK met Office to release global-average temperature data
A blog by a former climate scientist
Wow, the article on Scientific American is actually worse then this one. Basically, if you don’t agree then your wrong! The evidence against is called into question because there isn’t enough data – seems to me that argument HAS to work both ways but conveniently it doesn’t. In fact, the folks that are disagreeing are basically being called heretics – discredit everything they say.
BTW author, Mann may be a nice guy (so?) but he is clearly a part of the establishment and doing all he can to sell this lie – we all know what he gets out of this. What a joke.
One of the best arguments is that while meteorologists and climatologist can’t predict the weather (or climate) on short time scales they can over longer periods – like geologic timescales.
Again, its easy to sell the big lie if you sprinkle in enough truth around the periphery – this is exactly what is happening. Get some scientists to agree and produce speculative evidence for the lie and your good to go. Sort of like the big bang, convenient because it reconciles to religous beliefs but not to reality and observations – dark matter and dark energy = BS. Einstein would have puked had he seen this happening, probably turning over in his grave.
Right on, Sylar!
Just because someone has a Ph.D. in an academic area and has published loads of peer-reviewed articles on the subject doesn’t mean that he’s in any way ‘better’ than me in understanding that topic, does it? I mean, why should I respect his opinion on something just because he’s spent years studying and researching it?
After all, just because I’ve never done your job doesn’t mean I don’t know it and understand it just as well as you. My ignorance of your job and complete lack of experience in it certainly doesn’t mean that you’re ‘better’ than me at it, does it?
There are plenty of very respectable people who have not swallowed the ‘Global Warming’ theory. There’s me, there’s that guy I met in the crack house, and there’s you, Sylar , for a start! Just because over 99% of ‘experts’ believe in so-called ‘Global Warming’ doesn’t mean its actually happening. The ‘Global Warming’ theory is by no means settled!
I am certainly keeping an open mind about the ‘Global Warming’ controversy and will NOT be stampeded by the professional far-leftists, greenies and closet fascists into the current hysteria of the ‘Global Warming is happening’ crowd. I’m glad to see that you are too, Sylar !
We clear thinkers have to stick together. After all, we can FEEL the truth, and so we can understand the world so much better than all those ‘scientists’ and ‘experts’.
It annoys the hell out of me to try to talk to global warming deniers reasonably. They don’t have a scientific leg to stand on, and facts keep accumulating proving that global warming is happening, but they keep insisting that it’s a myth, and they demand that we treat them “fairly”, that we give their arguments the same weight and attention as the opposing side. It’s a bit like arguing with creationists and 9/11 conspiracy advocates: they want their argumenst to be treated seriously and with respect, no matter how bad and out there they are.
By the way, the political and financial interests opposed to global warming are much vaster and richer than the financial interests of those who think it’s a reality. Plus, this idea that thousands of scientist are in some way conspiring to cheat people into believing in global warming for their own gain is risible. I mean, if you’re a climate scientist, you’d probably make way more money denying global warming than supporting it.
Here is a good introduction to the science-based skepticism:
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/12/why-the-historical-warming-numbers-matter.html
If you are really interested in understanding the skepticism, start there. Too often the mode of discourse is only to survey the dumbest and most nonsensical arguments made against your beliefs and then wonder how anyone could be so foolish as to disagree with you…
Thanks DaveH, those were really helpful links. I’ll not show my work, show me yours and not links to more BS. Er – right, the oil magnets have the money – that’s the point, thanks for the clarification I thought the scientists have all the money – isn’t that what I’ve been saying? When you learn to read, you can post until then just mumble under your breath.
For as many links as there are supporting this idea there are just as many arguing against it. Tell you what, you pay my carbon taxes and I’ll be happy to agree that the earth is, you know – melting. We can’t predict anything about climate except that it changes – constantly. The Earth has a built-in governor for climate – its called the atmosphere.
It is truly amazing that sooooo many people believe this. BTW, this reconciles nicely to western religon as well – all the bad people die from fire in the end – how convenient is that? This will all culminate by 2012, we’ll HAVE TO GET a new system for controlling carbon emissions in place by then – watch and see.
Do you honestly believe that if it were true we would allow certain countries to continue to pollute with reckless abandon? C’mon, don’t be silly. And, that you can still pollute if you have the money to pay for the carbon “credits” – again, c’mon.
Again, there is no denying the Earth is warming like it has millions of times over the 4 billion or so years of its life (or 6000 years for those religous zealots). That’s why this lie can and is being sold, take a few high-power scientists to agree and confirm – done, the lie is in place. New World Order – economies based on and controlled by carbon taxes – all to sustain human existence because the politicians know whats best for us all – funny how it always comes down to money, power and control.
You be controlled DaveH and keeping fighting the good fight, believing and spewing the lies of the establishment – good for you! If you wipe your eyes, step back and really look at this in the bigger context you’ll see the light – I’m confident.
I have noticed my ice cream cone melts faster by a factor of (n) then just last year, where (n) represents the scare-me factor – what does it take to sell the BS. I think n=2 right DaveH, since you have the magic links – what is (n)?
Pingback: Lukewarm | Cosmic Variance | U Reader | Your daily news stop station ...
It’s a bit like arguing with creationists
In some cases this is just the thin end of the wedge.
You know, the experts for 100s of years argued that the earth was the center of the universe/galaxy/solar system – guess what, they were wrong! 99% of scientists agree that global warming is happening – so? This is how the lie is sold, take some truth (the Earth’s climate changes constantly) and use it to sell an agenda to grab power, money and control.
You do realize that in the vast majority of cases scientific predictions turn out to be wrong, vast majority translates to more than 75% of the time – that’s a fact that can’t be disputed. Beyond that, the predictions that are wrong – are typically wrong by a huge factor – this is because we don’t “observe” anything at its most fundamental level.
Let me know when someone applies quantum physics to this problem and it predicts the Earth is melting – then I’ll consider it to be true, otherwise open-wide because the BS is about to get way, way thicker – 2012 is the deadline for this “global system” to be put in place.
Can’t wait for the new world order. Right, BTW 9/11 was “produced” or at least “allowed” to happen – we needed a war, how else could we steal trillions of dollars. Afghanastan, cigarette taxes, Christianity, the war on drugs, IMF, UN – keep on believing that we need the gubmint and God to save us.
I do like the discourse here, good stuff. They started with the agri-commodities to control food distribution and who gets it (and who doesn’t) now its on to our air which the NWO will soon own the rights to – water is next and that hype has started already as well. In fact, they’ll ultimately tie the global warming thing directly to the water and kill the last two birds with one stone. Control the food, water and air.
Turns out that controlling the money isn’t enough huh? Need to control every aspect of our lives – completely. Unfortunately, no way to stop it – people are way too easy to control and manipulate.
Funny how the creationists are 100% on board with the idea of global warming, doesn’t that inject some question as to the validity of it?
“Scientists all agree that….”, Yea, I hear that same $hit on television commercials for everything from drugs to toothpaste – it works selling them why wouldn’t it work selling this? Well it has, marketing is something the oligarchy is very, very good at.
BTW, I believe that DNA was CREATED to EVOLVE – does that make me a creationist or an evolutionist? Neither idea stands on its own, yet there seems to be no middle ground on this point – your either one or the other. Same is true here, if you don’t agree with EVERY ASPECT of global warming and its predicted outcomes than your a heretic – history continues to repeat itself.
Remember, “top scientists all agree…”.
Jinchi, really? You took the time to comment that I missed a set of brackets?
I didn’t say anything about brackets. I laughed at your use of ellipses in a rant about scientists covering up details that don’t support their argument.
Here’s your version, complete with quotation marks:
and here’s the actual email (emphasis mine).
I especially like your implication that they were hiding data, when the word isn’t even in the original sentence.
BTW. The decline is a proxy calculation, not data. The data quite clearly showed that the globe was warming.
Surferosad – why shoudn’t you believe the establishment? is that really the question? Right, “top scientists all agree…”. Check history and you’ll find that in the vast majority (previously defined) of cases the establishment gets it wrong – way, way wrong. The majority is always right, as history has proven time and time again – go hang ten, dude. Continue to believe that the majority is right – a manufactured majority that is.
Anyway, this has got me going but I have to get back to making a living 🙂 Need to save my pennies to buy air and water in 2012, I recommend you all do the same – start accumulating water now – fill your basement with plastic jugs (oh wait their killing the Earth too and yet we make twice as many EVERY YEAR!!!!).
I did leave one thing out – it isn’t just water, air and food but also trash – that will be another way to control things. Seem silly? already happening. Yet we encourage consumption 🙂 how funny – these plastic bottles are really, really bad – but wait we are having a sale today – buy one bottle and get a second free!
We already pay for water, food and pay (dearly) for trash handling – I guess the air is really all that’s left isn’t it? At least for now anyway, part three of the agenda will include reproduction – oops already does. Too far gone we are, remember Outer Limits? That’s where we are – almost, “do not be alarmed, we are in control of your life – do not try and change it – you can’t”.
I’m back to work, enjoy my rhetoric in the meantime 🙂
Sean,
In the hopes that you’ll read a simple post and respond:
* Could you please comment on the deleting of emails and raw data (which both happened)?
-Sam
Great post Sean, succinctly puts a lot of good points
Sam– I did comment on them. Namely: if there is reasonable evidence of wrongdoing, it should be investigated and appropriate sanctions handed out. Meanwhile, it has no effect on the fact that the globe is warming in response to human activities, nor on what steps we should take in response.
To answer one of Sean’s questions directly (“What exactly is the motivation for the nefarious conspiracy of people who are supposedly plotting to mislead the world about global warming?”), global warming alarmists are motivated to push AGW as fact by three things other than belief in warning of a perceived risk. These additional motivators seem to be ignored in good faith by people like Sean, because of the echo chamber they inhabit.
1) Money and prestige. Vastly more money goes and has gone from governments to scientists than from companies such as Exxon to scientists. Moreover, large amounts of money goes to scientists from companies who are in favor of pushing global warming because of the rents they will receive from government action, such as GE. And those companies are the ones that are really profiting and stand to profit more, not the scientists–but if you know you’ll get no grants, your career will certainly suffer. None of those amounts of money go to scientists who do not toe the line of the funders.
Similarly, prestige follows these flows of money. No praise is lavished on those who are not alarmists; they are not invited to all-expenses-paid trips to luxury conferences, fawned over on network TV, and told repeatedly of their importance.
Therefore, contrary to Sean’s assumption, the money argument actually cuts against the AGW alarmists, not against their opponents.
2) More importantly, AGW alarmists are also motivated by a desire for transcendence–basically a religious feeling. The psychological makeup and apparent personality of global warming alarmists is remarkably similar to that of Communists of approximately 1910-1953. The Party is always right; those who oppose the Party are enemies, even if the Party says something different today than yesterday. Everybody wants to be part of something bigger than themselves; many people are willing to stop at nothing in service of some perceived greater good, which is ultimately about validating themselves and their lives.
3) In many cases, a third motivator is a desire to control others and feel superior to them. This is similar to #2, but not identical. It is essentially the totalitarian impulse. It drives much dubious human activity, unfortunately.
okay, fair enough. Don’t jump to conclusions; wait for an investigation. I agree with that. Thanks for the response.
I also agree that the skeptics are blowing this way out of proportion. But I think the climate community isn’t taking it seriously enough. It’s possible to admit that the accusations are quite grave, while simultaneously defending the scientific conclusion. This seems the best way to maintain the credibility of climate science. The current strategy seems to downplay the accusations to the effect that the public suspects the behavior in the emails is normal (which would be a very big problem indeed).