Has Global warming been a flat-out hoax all along?

[Peikko 1,575]

Link

I have seldom felt so alone. Confronted with crisis, most of the environmentalists I know have gone into denial. The emails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, they say, are a storm in a tea cup, no big deal, exaggerated out of all recognition. It is true that climate change deniers have made wild claims which the material can't possibly support (the end of global warming, the death of climate science). But it is also true that the emails are very damaging.

The response of the greens and most of the scientists I know is profoundly ironic, as we spend so much of our time confronting other people's denial. Pretending that this isn't a real crisis isn't going to make it go away. Nor is an attempt to justify the emails with technicalities. We'll be able to get past this only by grasping reality, apologising where appropriate and demonstrating that it cannot happen again.

It is true that much of what has been revealed could be explained as the usual cut and thrust of the peer review process, exacerbated by the extraordinary pressure the scientists were facing from a denial industry determined to crush them. One of the most damaging emails was sent by the head of the climatic research unit, Phil Jones. He wrote "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

One of these papers which was published in the journal Climate Research turned out to be so badly flawed that the scandal resulted in the resignation of the editor-in-chief. Jones knew that any incorrect papers by sceptical scientists would be picked up and amplified by climate change deniers funded by the fossil fuel industry, who often – as I documented in my book Heat – use all sorts of dirty tricks to advance their cause.

Even so, his message looks awful. It gives the impression of confirming a potent meme circulated by those who campaign against taking action on climate change: that the IPCC process is biased. However good the detailed explanations may be, most people aren't going to follow or understand them. Jones's statement, on the other hand, is stark and easy to grasp.

In this case you could argue that technically he has done nothing wrong. But a fat lot of good that will do. Think of the MPs' expenses scandal: complaints about stolen data, denials and huffy responses achieved nothing at all. Most of the MPs could demonstrate that technically they were innocent: their expenses had been approved by the Commons office. It didn't change public perceptions one jot. The only responses that have helped to restore public trust in Parliament are humility, openness and promises of reform.

When it comes to his handling of Freedom of Information requests, Professor Jones might struggle even to use a technical defence. If you take the wording literally, in one case he appears to be suggesting that emails subject to a request be deleted, which means that he seems to be advocating potentially criminal activity. Even if no other message had been hacked, this would be sufficient to ensure his resignation as head of the unit.

I feel desperately sorry for him: he must be walking through hell. But there is no helping it; he has to go, and the longer he leaves it, the worse it will get. He has a few days left in which to make an honourable exit. Otherwise, like the former Speaker of the House of Commons, Michael Martin, he will linger on until his remaining credibility vanishes, inflicting continuing damage to climate science.

Some people say that I am romanticising science, that it is never as open and honest as the Popperian ideal. Perhaps. But I know that opaqueness and secrecy are the enemies of science. There is a word for the apparent repeated attempts to prevent disclosure revealed in these emails: unscientific.

The crisis has been exacerbated by the university's handling of it, which has been a total trainwreck: a textbook example of how not to respond. RealClimate reports that "We were made aware of the existence of this archive last Tuesday morning when the hackers attempted to upload it to RealClimate, and we notified CRU of their possible security breach later that day." In other words, the university knew what was coming three days before the story broke. As far as I can tell, it sat like a rabbit in the headlights, waiting for disaster to strike.

When the emails hit the news on Friday morning, the university appeared completely unprepared. There was no statement, no position, no one to interview. Reporters kept being fobbed off while CRU's opponents landed blow upon blow on it. When a journalist I know finally managed to track down Phil Jones, he snapped "no comment" and put down the phone. This response is generally taken by the media to mean "guilty as charged". When I got hold of him on Saturday, his answer was to send me a pdf called "WMO statement on the status of the global climate in 1999". Had I a couple of hours to spare I might have been able to work out what the heck this had to do with the current crisis, but he offered no explanation.

By then he should have been touring the TV studios for the past 36 hours, confronting his critics, making his case and apologising for his mistakes. Instead, he had disappeared off the face of the Earth. Now, far too late, he has given an interview to the Press Association, which has done nothing to change the story.

The handling of this crisis suggests that nothing has been learnt by climate scientists in this country from 20 years of assaults on their discipline. They appear to have no idea what they're up against or how to confront it. Their opponents might be scumbags, but their media strategy is exemplary.

The greatest tragedy here is that despite many years of outright fabrication, fraud and deceit on the part of the climate change denial industry, documented in James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore's brilliant new book Climate Cover-up, it is now the climate scientists who look bad. By comparison to his opponents, Phil Jones is pure as the driven snow. Hoggan and Littlemore have shown how fossil fuel industries have employed "experts" to lie, cheat and manipulate on their behalf. The revelations in their book (as well as in Heat and in Ross Gelbspan's book The Heat Is On) are 100 times graver than anything contained in these emails.

But the deniers' campaign of lies, grotesque as it is, does not justify secrecy and suppression on the part of climate scientists. Far from it: it means that they must distinguish themselves from their opponents in every way. No one has been as badly let down by the revelations in these emails as those of us who have championed the science. We should be the first to demand that it is unimpeachable, not the last

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Good post, MC. That hits the nail right on the head. Unfortunately, nothing's going to change the mind of RWN's who are mental prisoners of their ideology.

I would love to see this charlatan Griffin in a debate over the science of Climate Change with real climatologists.

[Peikko 1,575]

In many ways, I think the climate scientists need to focus public attention on things they can relate to because the damage is visible, like the acidification of the oceans for example. Sadly though, even such concrete and measurable damage seems to be dismissed as irrelevant by some.

[Gary and Alla 3,696]

Big surprise

The "haters" of global warming are incensed to find out it never existed. They should be happy. No. Why? because it was never about global warming, just as it is not about health care.

The polar bears are safe (as evidenced by their multiplying 5 fold in the last 35 years) bt are any of the environmentalists ahppy? No. This will spell the end of them seizing our economy for their own twisted purposes and now they have to find another excuse when this one was working so well.

The problem is that you cannot get that many people to go along with the plot, someone is going to spill the beans eventually. It was astounding in 1944 that the D_Day invasion was pulled off without a credible leak. But that was 1944, Al Gore hadn't invented the internet yet and now they are trying to pull off a much larger scale ruse. Simply was destined to fail. AlGore made out better than anyone could have predicted given his rather dull demeanor and general lack of anythig worhtwhile to contribute...so he and his family will be smiling of rsome time to come. He will probably claim credit for solving global warming in a nother few years and get another well deserved Nobel Prize.

I, fo one, an very pleased to hear the problem is solved.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

In many ways, I think the climate scientists need to focus public attention on things they can relate to because the damage is visible, like the acidification of the oceans for example. Sadly though, even such concrete and measurable damage seems to be dismissed as irrelevant by some.

Many of them do try. Anyone who watches science programming (Planet Earth, Nature, etc.) can hear that message driven home along with powerful imagery. The problem is that a lot of Right Wingers turn their nose up to PBS and other channels that have science programming, believing that it's Leftist propaganda. You really can't win with these nutters.

Big surprise

The "haters" of global warming are incensed to find out it never existed. They should be happy. No. Why? because it was never about global warming, just as it is not about health care.

The polar bears are safe (as evidenced by their multiplying 5 fold in the last 35 years) bt are any of the environmentalists ahppy? No. This will spell the end of them seizing our economy for their own twisted purposes and now they have to find another excuse when this one was working so well.

The problem is that you cannot get that many people to go along with the plot, someone is going to spill the beans eventually. It was astounding in 1944 that the D_Day invasion was pulled off without a credible leak. But that was 1944, Al Gore hadn't invented the internet yet and now they are trying to pull off a much larger scale ruse. Simply was destined to fail. AlGore made out better than anyone could have predicted given his rather dull demeanor and general lack of anythig worhtwhile to contribute...so he and his family will be smiling of rsome time to come. He will probably claim credit for solving global warming in a nother few years and get another well deserved Nobel Prize.

I, fo one, an very pleased to hear the problem is solved.

You're an idiot.

[Gary and Alla 3,696]

Oh, it is a national security issue now. That makes a difference. I wasn't aware liberals were so influernced by such things unless they are "cherry picking"

Global warming is a hoax...and that's a GOOD thing. Military intelligence, as they say in the military...is an oxymoron.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Oh, it is a national security issue now. That makes a difference. I wasn't aware liberals were so influernced by such things unless they are "cherry picking"

Global warming is a hoax...and that's a GOOD thing. Military intelligence, as they say in the military...is an oxymoron.

Yes, it's all a big conspiracy to make you ride a bicycle and recite Mao.

[Pooky 3,930]

Link

I have seldom felt so alone. Confronted with crisis, most of the environmentalists I know have gone into denial. The emails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, they say, are a storm in a tea cup, no big deal, exaggerated out of all recognition. It is true that climate change deniers have made wild claims which the material can't possibly support (the end of global warming, the death of climate science). But it is also true that the emails are very damaging.

The response of the greens and most of the scientists I know is profoundly ironic, as we spend so much of our time confronting other people's denial. Pretending that this isn't a real crisis isn't going to make it go away. Nor is an attempt to justify the emails with technicalities. We'll be able to get past this only by grasping reality, apologising where appropriate and demonstrating that it cannot happen again.

It is true that much of what has been revealed could be explained as the usual cut and thrust of the peer review process, exacerbated by the extraordinary pressure the scientists were facing from a denial industry determined to crush them. One of the most damaging emails was sent by the head of the climatic research unit, Phil Jones. He wrote "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

One of these papers which was published in the journal Climate Research turned out to be so badly flawed that the scandal resulted in the resignation of the editor-in-chief. Jones knew that any incorrect papers by sceptical scientists would be picked up and amplified by climate change deniers funded by the fossil fuel industry, who often – as I documented in my book Heat – use all sorts of dirty tricks to advance their cause.

Even so, his message looks awful. It gives the impression of confirming a potent meme circulated by those who campaign against taking action on climate change: that the IPCC process is biased. However good the detailed explanations may be, most people aren't going to follow or understand them. Jones's statement, on the other hand, is stark and easy to grasp.

In this case you could argue that technically he has done nothing wrong. But a fat lot of good that will do. Think of the MPs' expenses scandal: complaints about stolen data, denials and huffy responses achieved nothing at all. Most of the MPs could demonstrate that technically they were innocent: their expenses had been approved by the Commons office. It didn't change public perceptions one jot. The only responses that have helped to restore public trust in Parliament are humility, openness and promises of reform.

When it comes to his handling of Freedom of Information requests, Professor Jones might struggle even to use a technical defence. If you take the wording literally, in one case he appears to be suggesting that emails subject to a request be deleted, which means that he seems to be advocating potentially criminal activity. Even if no other message had been hacked, this would be sufficient to ensure his resignation as head of the unit.

I feel desperately sorry for him: he must be walking through hell. But there is no helping it; he has to go, and the longer he leaves it, the worse it will get. He has a few days left in which to make an honourable exit. Otherwise, like the former Speaker of the House of Commons, Michael Martin, he will linger on until his remaining credibility vanishes, inflicting continuing damage to climate science.

Some people say that I am romanticising science, that it is never as open and honest as the Popperian ideal. Perhaps. But I know that opaqueness and secrecy are the enemies of science. There is a word for the apparent repeated attempts to prevent disclosure revealed in these emails: unscientific.

The crisis has been exacerbated by the university's handling of it, which has been a total trainwreck: a textbook example of how not to respond. RealClimate reports that "We were made aware of the existence of this archive last Tuesday morning when the hackers attempted to upload it to RealClimate, and we notified CRU of their possible security breach later that day." In other words, the university knew what was coming three days before the story broke. As far as I can tell, it sat like a rabbit in the headlights, waiting for disaster to strike.

When the emails hit the news on Friday morning, the university appeared completely unprepared. There was no statement, no position, no one to interview. Reporters kept being fobbed off while CRU's opponents landed blow upon blow on it. When a journalist I know finally managed to track down Phil Jones, he snapped "no comment" and put down the phone. This response is generally taken by the media to mean "guilty as charged". When I got hold of him on Saturday, his answer was to send me a pdf called "WMO statement on the status of the global climate in 1999". Had I a couple of hours to spare I might have been able to work out what the heck this had to do with the current crisis, but he offered no explanation.

By then he should have been touring the TV studios for the past 36 hours, confronting his critics, making his case and apologising for his mistakes. Instead, he had disappeared off the face of the Earth. Now, far too late, he has given an interview to the Press Association, which has done nothing to change the story.

The handling of this crisis suggests that nothing has been learnt by climate scientists in this country from 20 years of assaults on their discipline. They appear to have no idea what they're up against or how to confront it. Their opponents might be scumbags, but their media strategy is exemplary.

The greatest tragedy here is that despite many years of outright fabrication, fraud and deceit on the part of the climate change denial industry, documented in James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore's brilliant new book Climate Cover-up, it is now the climate scientists who look bad. By comparison to his opponents, Phil Jones is pure as the driven snow. Hoggan and Littlemore have shown how fossil fuel industries have employed "experts" to lie, cheat and manipulate on their behalf. The revelations in their book (as well as in Heat and in Ross Gelbspan's book The Heat Is On) are 100 times graver than anything contained in these emails.

But the deniers' campaign of lies, grotesque as it is, does not justify secrecy and suppression on the part of climate scientists. Far from it: it means that they must distinguish themselves from their opponents in every way. No one has been as badly let down by the revelations in these emails as those of us who have championed the science. We should be the first to demand that it is unimpeachable, not the last

Good post.

As I said, public perception is what's at stake, and if the public can't believe the scientists are telling the truth and can't understand what they're being told because the scientists refuse to explain things in layman's terms, then all the science in the world is for nothing.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Good post.

As I said, public perception is what's at stake, and if the public can't believe the scientists are telling the truth and can't understand what they're being told because the scientists refuse to explain things in layman's terms, then all the science in the world is for nothing.

Television is full of good science programming, but you're not going to understand science watching CSI or Lost. The bulk of top notch science programming is on PBS, three letters that make Far Right Wingers foam at the mouth.

[Pooky 3,930]

Good post.

As I said, public perception is what's at stake, and if the public can't believe the scientists are telling the truth and can't understand what they're being told because the scientists refuse to explain things in layman's terms, then all the science in the world is for nothing.

Television is full of good science programming, but you're not going to understand science watching CSI or Lost. The bulk of top notch science programming is on PBS, three letters that make Far Right Wingers foam at the mouth.

Then they're not trying hard enough.

Politics be damned, Left or Right. This is a scientific matter, and the scientists need to divorce themselves from the politics.

It is not the public's duty to be informed, it is the scientific community's duty to inform and educate. They need to be better at it, a lot better.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Good post.

As I said, public perception is what's at stake, and if the public can't believe the scientists are telling the truth and can't understand what they're being told because the scientists refuse to explain things in layman's terms, then all the science in the world is for nothing.

Television is full of good science programming, but you're not going to understand science watching CSI or Lost. The bulk of top notch science programming is on PBS, three letters that make Far Right Wingers foam at the mouth.

Then they're not trying hard enough.

Politics be damned, Left or Right. This is a scientific matter, and the scientists need to divorce themselves from the politics.

It is not the public's duty to be informed, it is the scientific community's duty to inform and educate. They need to be better at it, a lot better.

For one, it's hard to get people tuned in and turned on to science if they have a predisposed skepticism to science itself (secular). There is that element among many on the Far Right. But for any child who grows up in a normal household where the parents aren't paranoid skeptics of science or of public television, has watch programs like Nova or even Bill Nye the Science Guy. You can't get people to listen to you if they've got their fingers in their ears.

[HAL 9000 96]

'The public' and 'its' perception are definitely important to politicians that care about votes, sure. I wonder though- could 'that' public and the 'perception' you refer to be really a code for people that do not fully comprehend the issue of what it is they are 'doubting'??

Get back to me when you wish to make more substantive, scientific claims. And not pseudo-political ones about fraudulent science being 'apparently' performed by a small group.

Hal, I don't use code. I ask questions.

Every time I am asked to give a report, my practice is to explain in ways that a layman, with no specific knowledge of the subject, can understand what I have written. Nowhere in the AGW debate has this kind of report/summary/explanation been given. The scientific community is hell bent on keeping the jargon scientific, then writing off dissenters as uninformed idiots, rather in the way that you just did.

Hence, the public perception is veering round to doubting the climatologists and believing that they have something to hide. My whole point was that this is rather counter-productive, when the need is to garner public support for measures to protect our environment.

It would be better to be more substantial. Want political questions?? I'm fine with that. I'm sure there are sufficient policial pundits on this site to answer your most deep questions. If you want actual scientific questions... I can guarantee that most of those same pundits are NOT the right people to trust with honest, rational answers.

Scientific jargon is what it is. No need to have a hissy fit about assigning value to it. CO2 is CO2, also perhaps 'that gas that gives you a headache if you inhale too much of it' but it pays to be aware of not just what it is and what it does, but also where it is in a complex atmospheric system.

Public opinion is easy to manipulate- as we can see and relate to the increasing amount of short-attention spans in this era. I certainly wish more of the public would pay attention in science class (to avoid that problem with that 'jargon'). This is an issue of pure and simple ignorance being supported by a political agenda. Plain and simple.

[HAL 9000 96]

In many ways, I think the climate scientists need to focus public attention on things they can relate to because the damage is visible, like the acidification of the oceans for example. Sadly though, even such concrete and measurable damage seems to be dismissed as irrelevant by some.

Many of them do try. Anyone who watches science programming (Planet Earth, Nature, etc.) can hear that message driven home along with powerful imagery. The problem is that a lot of Right Wingers turn their nose up to PBS and other channels that have science programming, believing that it's Leftist propaganda. You really can't win with these nutters.

Big surprise

The "haters" of global warming are incensed to find out it never existed. They should be happy. No. Why? because it was never about global warming, just as it is not about health care.

The polar bears are safe (as evidenced by their multiplying 5 fold in the last 35 years) bt are any of the environmentalists ahppy? No. This will spell the end of them seizing our economy for their own twisted purposes and now they have to find another excuse when this one was working so well.

The problem is that you cannot get that many people to go along with the plot, someone is going to spill the beans eventually. It was astounding in 1944 that the D_Day invasion was pulled off without a credible leak. But that was 1944, Al Gore hadn't invented the internet yet and now they are trying to pull off a much larger scale ruse. Simply was destined to fail. AlGore made out better than anyone could have predicted given his rather dull demeanor and general lack of anythig worhtwhile to contribute...so he and his family will be smiling of rsome time to come. He will probably claim credit for solving global warming in a nother few years and get another well deserved Nobel Prize.

I, fo one, an very pleased to hear the problem is solved.

You're an idiot.

Not nice Steven...

Refer to my previous post. Ignorance is a very ugly dodo, certainly. All the chips are certainly coming together with this crowd. A critical point is being reached... after that, even the hardest heads should realize how off the mark they have been:

Scientific ignorance

Political motivation/following

Al Gore hatred and jealousy

[HAL 9000 96]

Good post.

As I said, public perception is what's at stake, and if the public can't believe the scientists are telling the truth and can't understand what they're being told because the scientists refuse to explain things in layman's terms, then all the science in the world is for nothing.

Television is full of good science programming, but you're not going to understand science watching CSI or Lost. The bulk of top notch science programming is on PBS, three letters that make Far Right Wingers foam at the mouth.

Then they're not trying hard enough.

Politics be damned, Left or Right. This is a scientific matter, and the scientists need to divorce themselves from the politics.

It is not the public's duty to be informed, it is the scientific community's duty to inform and educate. They need to be better at it, a lot better.

I can definitely agree with your desire here. I think they DO inform and educate. It should be a LOT louder, and I also think that the political/industrial agenda (not left or right, just political opposition in its most basic form) against them is most certainly vested in keeping that communication fragmented, aloof, and disconnected from the bulk of the lay community. Hence many segments of the public continue to have their ignorance further facilitated and misled.

[Pooky 3,930]

'The public' and 'its' perception are definitely important to politicians that care about votes, sure. I wonder though- could 'that' public and the 'perception' you refer to be really a code for people that do not fully comprehend the issue of what it is they are 'doubting'??

Get back to me when you wish to make more substantive, scientific claims. And not pseudo-political ones about fraudulent science being 'apparently' performed by a small group.

Hal, I don't use code. I ask questions.

Every time I am asked to give a report, my practice is to explain in ways that a layman, with no specific knowledge of the subject, can understand what I have written. Nowhere in the AGW debate has this kind of report/summary/explanation been given. The scientific community is hell bent on keeping the jargon scientific, then writing off dissenters as uninformed idiots, rather in the way that you just did.

Hence, the public perception is veering round to doubting the climatologists and believing that they have something to hide. My whole point was that this is rather counter-productive, when the need is to garner public support for measures to protect our environment.

It would be better to be more substantial. Want political questions?? I'm fine with that. I'm sure there are sufficient political pundits on this site to answer your most deep questions. If you want actual scientific questions... I can guarantee that most of those same pundits are NOT the right people to trust with honest, rational answers.

Scientific jargon is what it is. No need to have a hissy fit about assigning value to it. CO2 is CO2, also perhaps 'that gas that gives you a headache if you inhale too much of it' but it pays to be aware of not just what it is and what it does, but also where it is in a complex atmospheric system.

Public opinion is easy to manipulate- as we can see and relate to the increasing amount of short-attention spans in this era. I certainly wish more of the public would pay attention in science class (to avoid that problem with that 'jargon'). This is an issue of pure and simple ignorance being supported by a political agenda. Plain and simple.

Absolute bollocks.

It's the lazy way out for a scientist to say,"I did my job, if the public don't believe me, or understand me, it's not my problem."

I don't give a damn about political pundits spinning it to the left and the right. I want the scientists to come out and explain it so that people who didn't pay attention in science class can grasp the issue. Because, like it or not, they need to understand it just as much as the intelligentsia.