On the Climategate emails
Doubts about how much humans are contributing to changes in the climate have had an increasing number of things in their favor: a leveling off and even cooling of global temperatures over the past decade; the fact that Anthropogenic Global Warming theory (AGW) doesn’t account fully for a number of natural effects on the climate; admissions that the likes of Al Gore have trumped up the potential consequences of global warming in order to gain public attention; serious questions about the accuracy of the data that AGW proponents cite, and the scientific rigor with which the data have been collected.
What was missing was a paper trail indicating that warmists were manipulating the exchange of information and attempting to silence skeptics. Until now.
The recent release of several dozen megabytes of information from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia has struck a huge blow against the politics, and perhaps the science, of AGW. It’s unclear whether these data — including thousands of emails (UPDATE: sorry, make that “emails and other documents”) from some of the world’s most prominent warmists — were hacked by an outsider or leaked by a whistleblower on the inside. But the people who wrote and received the emails have verified their veracity.
Lest you doubt the impact of these emails, know that one of AGW’s greatest fanatics, George Monbiot of London’s Guardian newspaper, has described them as “a major blow” that “could scarcely be more damaging.” The fact that Monbiot tries to play down their impact on the science of AGW by concocting an over-the-top fake email, saying that only this kind of email would prove an over-arching conspiracy among warmists, merely shows that this crowd can do nothing but deal in hyperbole.
Science writer Ron Bailey — who, perhaps surprisingly for a staffer at uber-libertarian Reason Magazine, is convinced by the science of AGW, or at least was 18 months ago when I met him in Copenhagen — was compelled to write:
Hmmm. Data not agreeing with model predictions. Very interesting. And of course, Flannery is right, science does work through “a robust interchange and testing of ideas.” But interchanging ideas about how to hijack some aspects of peer review and by trying to suppress the work of researchers with whom one disagrees? Messy indeed.
Now, on to the emails.
I haven’t read through even a fraction of the emails, so I will only pass on what others, who have spent more time looking at them, have found.
One good summary is at Powerline blog, which includes emails suggesting that the CRU scientists tried to eliminate inconvenient “blips” in the data; complained about journalists, specifically Andrew Revkin of The New York Times, who were “not as predictable as we’d like”; and mused about ways to make sure the grant money from green-friendly corporations kept coming (while complaining about companies that funded alternative viewpoints). More from Powerline here, here and here.
Perhaps the most damning email threads describe the lengths to which the CRU crew went to silence debate. Pajamas Media has done a great job compiling messages along these lines. The PJM articles include: Charlie Martin on how the men violated the social contract of science; Rand Simberg on scientists as politicians; and Christopher Monckton, a British lord who gave an incredibly informative and entertaining talk this summer at a Georgia Public Policy Foundation event, and whose offer to debate Al Gore on the science of global warming has gone unaccepted, on why the CRU scientists are criminals.
A longtime thorn in the side of the AGW crowd, Steve McIntyre, hosts several discussion threads on some of the implications of the emails, including some back-and-forth about computer coding that I frankly do not understand in the least, here.
This undoubtedly won’t end the debate about global warming, but then again the only people who were trying all along to end the debate were the AGW crowd. What it ought to do, though, is provide real impetus for these supposed scientists to follow the normal procedures of science — including revealing their data so that others can test their hypotheses, a staple of scientific research that the CRU crew had until now avoided with all their might.
And at the very least, this ought to be reason enough for Congress, and the poo-bahs at next month’s U.N. climate change conference in Copenhagen, to back off any dramatic new anti-carbon measures until we know whether the scandal goes deeper than this.
***
Find me on Facebook.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
162 comments Add your comment
Intown Lib
November 24th, 2009
1:03 pm
I was waiting for you to write an article on this topic and predictably, you’ve used it to push forward the idea that Global Warming science is a giant conspiracy. But, perhaps you ought to give the flip side of this argument a chance:
Reveken from the NY Times: “The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument. However, the documents will undoubtedly raise questions about the quality of research on some specific questions and the actions of some scientists.”
And from the same NY Times article:
But several scientists whose names appear in the e-mail messages said they merely revealed that scientists were human, and did nothing to undercut the body of research on global warming. “Science doesn’t work because we’re all nice,” said Gavin A. Schmidt, a climatologist at NASA whose e-mail exchanges with colleagues over a variety of climate studies were in the cache. “Newton may have been an ass, but the theory of gravity still works.”
Let’s not jump to the conclusion that suddenly a bunch of ideologue naysayers are right that global warming is a hoax of some sort. Let’s continue to look at facts. Also, anyone who thinks science can somehow be completely removed from politics or that there is no political aspect to science is very naive.
retiredds
November 24th, 2009
1:07 pm
I would like to suggest to those who have doubts about human influence on climate change I recommend that you Google “scientific opinion on climate change”. For the record I stand with the many scientific organizations that suggest that we (humans) have an impact. For that reason I have used the term that the science of climate change is settled. It is up to us to decide what to do with the information we are provided.
I add the following quote from the above referenced subject.
With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[70]
Statements by individual scientists opposing the mainstream assessment of global warming do include claims that the observed warming is likely to be attributable to natural causes.
Peter
November 24th, 2009
1:16 pm
Hey David……..this comment ……..”El Jefe, there is no doubt that the climate changes. But, the problem is that politicians want us to believe that WE are the problem. It’s pure arrogance and stupidity on their part.”
Only a person who doesn’t understand the big picture would make that comment…….Trees my friend Trees……..If you don’t for a moment think the cutting of rain forests, and development of forests into asphalt areas are not making a difference, perhaps you should look at the ice coverage over the arctic and Antarctic circles during the summer months in those regions !
Sunshine and Thunder
November 24th, 2009
1:16 pm
Kyle,
You said that the NYT has chosen not to report on these emails. Why hasn’t the AJC? Am I missing something?
Kyle Wingfield
November 24th, 2009
1:22 pm
k: When I say “AGW” I mean “Anthropogenic Global Warming” — i.e., the people who disagree with McIntyre. Not “Anti-Global Warming.”
El Jefe
November 24th, 2009
1:24 pm
Al was a politician? I thought he was just a VP?
Anyway, who appointed him the climate deity?
The American People
November 24th, 2009
1:27 pm
Write an article about the SEIU 1000 members beating up Ken Hamidi for trying to exercising his right for free speech at their public meeting. Write about the hyocrisy of the fact that this is barely been a news story. Write about how Obama has as he says “worked with this organization all of his life” but they are keeping this very quiet. Write about the obvious fact that if a black man would have gone into a public meeting and had been beaten up by 4 white men it would be national news and their would be a public outcry on every news channel in this country. Thankyou.
El Jefe
November 24th, 2009
1:28 pm
retiredds,
We do not disagree on climate change, it is a natural occurrence. I am arguing about who is causing it.
Question, what temperature should it be?
Could it be we are too cool and it should be warmer?
Kyle Wingfield
November 24th, 2009
1:33 pm
Intown Lib: I was waiting for you to comment on my article on this topic and predictably, you’ve used it to misrepresent what I wrote.
I specifically wrote that this won’t end the debate, and that the appropriate future course is for the people who wrote these emails to subject their data to the rigorous testing which science demands, and which so far they have refused to allow. I specifically wrote that the paper trail here relates to warmists manipulating the exchange of data and trying to silence skeptics, not that all of the science is just one big conspiracy. That’s exactly what these emails reveal.
As for the idea that this is some sort of limited group of people acting in bad faith — they may be limited in number, but they have outsized influence on the climate science community and the reports of the IPCC. Let’s not minimize how this scandal affects the credibility of some key players in the debate — and the need to re-examine everything that has been put in doubt as a result.
As for science mixing with politics: It may be naive not to expect some mixing, but it is irresponsible not to identify the hyper-politicization of science when it happens.
Kyle Wingfield
November 24th, 2009
1:37 pm
Sunshine: Not sure whether we had an article in the print edition, but I know we ran an AP story about the emails online yesterday. In any case, we don’t (so far as I know) have a blog along the lines of Revkin’s Dot-Earth, which still is only indirectly writing about the contents of the emails.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
November 24th, 2009
1:43 pm
Why baseball is superior to science: In 1919, the third-best ballplayer ever agreed to fix the game. Three years later he was barred by the game, for his misbehavior In 2009, when evidence that two big players.attempted to fix the game, the leftists circle the wagons to protect the guilty. Ethics is found in baseball, but not in science. The biggest difference between the actions: Joe Jackson still hit 0.480 in the world series, but M-M conspired to destroy the reputations of those who disagreed with them.
retiredds
November 24th, 2009
1:44 pm
El Jefe, I, quite frankly, don’t know what the long term temperature range should be. I am sure there is some scientific article out there which posits a suggestion or two about that. You could very well be right about the planet being too cool, but I somehow (no scientific evidence) doubt that is the problem. Ice caps melt because it’s too warm, not too cold. One piece of evidence I can tell you: when I was growing up in the 1950’s in the northeast our streams and small lakes would freeze every winter in January and February. Those same small lakes and streams haven’t frozen over for at least the last three decades ( I have discussed this with friends and family who still live there). Just using that small sliver of evidence tells me that cooling is not an issue in that area.
A question I have for you is, what is the “tipping point”? The “tipping point” being that one degree of difference for a protracted time that makes the trend irreversible.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
November 24th, 2009
1:45 pm
Extract from the emails:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704779704574553652849094482.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
David Axelfraud
November 24th, 2009
1:53 pm
Peter, I believe GOD is in control over everything. Man can not make a dent in God’s creation.
David Axelfraud
November 24th, 2009
1:56 pm
Peter, if global warming is real then how come NO ONE can agree on what it is that causes it?
You guys always pretend to know everything about global warming, then change the name of it to something else like climate change, and finally…………….still can’t agree on anything.
Bottom line: Al Gore’s movie was crap and many people have picked it apart. People even discovered that he used props in the one scene where the ice breaks off. He also used doctored footage of polar bears.
Kyle Wingfield
November 24th, 2009
1:57 pm
JackPoynter: Your comment was in moderation because it included more than one link, which automatically raises our spam filter’s suspicions…I’ve cleared it from moderation now.
David Axelfraud
November 24th, 2009
1:59 pm
El Jefe, someone in congress actually called Al Gore a prophet. Congressman Markey (D-MA)
Like the saying goes: Beware of prophets who seek profit.
David Axelfraud
November 24th, 2009
2:06 pm
Kyle, sorry for the long post. I just needed to get those out there for the cult followers of Al Gore.
Kyle Wingfield
November 24th, 2009
2:08 pm
Sorry, Axelfraud. Rules are rules. Please provide a link instead.
Steve
November 24th, 2009
2:12 pm
El Jefe,
Al Gore appointed himself as Climate Diety
At one point he was a member of Congress prior to being elected VP. I’m not sure if the Senate position came before or after he invented the internet.
David Axelfraud
November 24th, 2009
2:20 pm
Kyle Wingfield, just this once?
Kyle Wingfield
November 24th, 2009
2:21 pm
I took down a long cut-and-paste by Peter just yesterday.
NeverTrustARepublican
November 24th, 2009
2:22 pm
Kyle, perhaps, and this is conjecture just as the assumptions of intent in your latest pot-stirring article, but perhaps the fear was that the blips in the data, which if you had a clue about what scientific data looks like you’d know is normal, would result in those with the real politica-only agenda to gain time-wasting traction. Should they have suppressed it? No, but I can empathize. Now, hacks such as yourself get to cast doubt on issues you have neither the intelligence or the education to comprehend (though I imagine with your detailed work on carbon dioxide referenced above you may have picked up a thing or two) and pander to the ubiquitous pathetics who defer to ‘God’s Plan’ or complain that the an immensly complex issue can’t be dealt with in a timely and inexpensive manner. Write about things you can comprehend, your local City Council, the latest miracle cure for early onset male baldness, but do the world a favor and leave science to those of us who chose something other than yellow journalism and shill for the Republican Party as a career.
David Axelfraud
November 24th, 2009
2:22 pm
http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/10/30/35-scientific-errors-or-intentional-lies-in-an-inconvenient-truth/
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4870
JackPoynter
November 24th, 2009
2:23 pm
OK, thanks Kyle
retiredds
November 24th, 2009
2:31 pm
May I remind everyone that the prophets of old were instructed to tell the people what they didn’t want to hear. I don’t want any of you to jump to the conclusion that I am covering up a notion that Al Gore is a prophet because I am not (is that clear). But it is also well known that a prophet is not declared a prophet in his or her life time, and usually many hundreds of years later. So, be suspicious, but who knows what people will see as fact 200-500 years from now, if we leave them a planet worth living on.
Kyle Wingfield
November 24th, 2009
2:32 pm
NeverTrust: Try reading the emails in question before you attempt to justify what they did.
The emails’ authors were explicitly trying “to hide the decline” in temperatures and “to ‘contain’ the putative ‘MWP,’” a reference to the Medieval Warm Period whose existence and/or importance they deny. One does not have to assume anything about their intent when they talk about deleting emails subject to an FOI request and to keep certain articles out of scientific journals, “even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
If you have a better argument to make than speciously and lazily questioning my intelligence or education or career choice, bring it.
JackPoynter
November 24th, 2009
2:33 pm
NeverTrustARepublican,
Well, you can trust me, I’m an independent.
Just speaking for myself, I tend to discount any post that contains ad hominem attacks as irrelevant to the issue.
I would suspect that turns off other people as well.
JP
mike
November 24th, 2009
2:37 pm
NeverTrust –
You seem to be ignonrant of the emails’ contents. It goes far beyond suppressing a “blip”. These emails demonstrate a conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.
Based on your silly name, I can assume that you are simply having a knee-jerk reaction, as most mindless partisans do. Just for once try actually informing yourself before bleating your stale talking points.
Joan
November 24th, 2009
2:40 pm
The global warming scam was a way for Gore to win the Nobel and Oscar, a cause for the numb-heads in Hollywood to champion, and what is worse, a scam that has cost, and will cost, American companies a fortune to try to “fix” something that isn’t broken. I hope this does bust a cap in “cap and trade”. Obama just acts like it is business as usual, not investigating the AGW release–but marching on with the blinders firmly affixed to push his agenda–which I am beginning to believe is to destroy this country for good and all.
retiredds
November 24th, 2009
2:42 pm
For those of you who dislike Al Gore you needn’t worry that he is a prophet. Prophets in the Bible were sent by God to tell the people what they didn’t want to hear. It usually took 300-500 years for the prophet to be recognized as such. So, as I said, you needn’t worry. If Al Gore is a prophet it wont be known in our lifetime so you don’t need to lose too much sleep over it or argue whether he is or isn’t. BUT if, in fact, he really is a prophet and we don’t heed his advice that will be tragic to future generations (who just might be related to you and me).
NeverTrustARepublican
November 24th, 2009
2:49 pm
JackP….who cares?
Kyle, ‘hiding the decline’ is the data I said they shouldn’t have hidden but can understand why they did. Articles such as yours prove them right in their worry, they don’t justify their actions. A beetr choice would’ve been to publish it and then continue to attempt to educate those without their grasp of the issue but with a sincere interest that we get this right. You don’t belong to that group.
Better argument to what? Your ‘feeling’ that it’s all a scam based on your considerable background in earth sciences? Your intuition that tells you that carbon dioxide is not a concern and is in fact good for the planet in whatever quantites Jim Inhofe recommends? Your lack of education (in this arena only as I’m sure your a wonderful dinner convesationalist) is kind of the point. As is your agenda, an issue you feebly try and transfer.
JackPoynter
November 24th, 2009
2:53 pm
NTaR,
It only matters if you’re trying to convince people, rather than just deliver a rant.
Excuse me, I shouldn’t try to educate people on their delivery method, but it’s an old habit from when the children were still home.
JP
mike
November 24th, 2009
2:58 pm
Between retiredds’s labeling of Gore as a prophet and NTR’s support for hiding facts that hinder ideology, you would think that maybe liberals aren’t anywhere near the “intellectuals” that they like to think they are
Peter
November 24th, 2009
2:58 pm
Wow……..David….. What a crazy comment…………
” Peter, I believe GOD is in control over everything. Man can not make a dent in God’s creation. ”
Questions for you then…..Has God been telling us to cut down all the Trees and pollute the rivers?
Over Fish the waters ? Kill off the whales, slaughter the wild Wolves from helicopters ?
Cut off the tops of Monkey heads and eat the brain while the monkey is alive ?
Does God tell folks to kill…… or in George Bush’s case tell him to start a WAR, and incinerate tons of Bombs that make the earth warmer ?
Gee ……….. seems like God’s hand is NOT in Everything !
Look in the mirror……hopefully you are seeing God…….. but folks do have a hand in things !
NeverTrustARepublican
November 24th, 2009
3:01 pm
JackP, read the responses. These are not people seeking education, they’re seeking confirmation that we can stick our heads in the sand, save some money, and continue distrusting anything with a reading level above a typical Reader’s Digest article. I responded so Our new propagandist can be seen as no more a reliable commenter on this issue than I am on, say, the psychosexual overtone of the works of Franz Kafka. Difference is, I don’t pretend to have anything important to say on that subject.
mike
November 24th, 2009
3:01 pm
Peter –
Can you shout in caps a little more and include more exclamation points in your rants? You are right on the cusp of being a textbook angry internet guy. I hate to see you sell yourself short.
Peter
November 24th, 2009
3:03 pm
Hey Mike…..Got milk ?
mike
November 24th, 2009
3:06 pm
Peter –
Nope, but unlike you, I’ve got a point.
Peter
November 24th, 2009
3:07 pm
That is what ? You know all ? Yours is the ONLY way ? Blinded by the light ?
Peter
November 24th, 2009
3:10 pm
Well Mike it appears you are condescending……….Not a god like quality !
“Between retiredds’s labeling of Gore as a prophet and NTR’s support for hiding facts that hinder ideology, you would think that maybe liberals aren’t anywhere near the “intellectuals” that they like to think they are
”
Kyle Wingfield
November 24th, 2009
3:10 pm
NeverTrust: I’ll say it one more time: All I have ever said on this topic is that we need more debate, more examination of the facts, and more transparency and less politics from the self-proclaimed experts. I have never described AGW as a conspiracy, only as a theory. Point to something I’ve written to the contrary.
You are the one ascribing “feeling” and “intuition” and ignorance to other people, namely me, and describing my calls for more debate, etc. as “stick[ing] our heads in the sand.” Most everyone else on here is talking about ideas and facts; you are the one stuck on the people themselves and what you believe to be our shortcomings.
If you can’t grasp that, as well as the difference between what I’ve said and what you think/wish/imagine I’d said, then there’s really no point in continuing this discussion.
retiredds
November 24th, 2009
3:17 pm
Peter, you are making meaning where there isn’t any. I didn’t say he was a prophet, I said that if he is a prophet it won’t be known in our life time. I also said that if that in fact becomes the case and we don’t heed his advice future generations will suffer the consequences. You also jump to the conclusion that I am a liberal (by your inference). You see, much of the problem with today’s discourse is that so many make assumptions that are without merit, and your labeling is without merit.
Peter
November 24th, 2009
3:20 pm
Hey Kyle……..with this statement…….. :” Doubts about how much humans are contributing to changes in the climate have had an increasing number of things in their favor: a leveling off and even cooling of global temperatures over the past decade. ”
How do you account for the diminishing amount of summer ice on both poles, proven by annual photos taken from the air ?
mike
November 24th, 2009
3:20 pm
Peter –
“Well Mike it appears you are condescending……….Not a god like quality !”
What does being “god like” have to do with anything?
Let me guess. You are one of those “tolerant” liberals who sees all who disagree with their narrow minded views as being part of one big stereotype, and hence I must be a fundamentalist Christan. Not surprising. You have a lot of company.
retiredds
November 24th, 2009
3:20 pm
Ooops, Peter, I apologize, my remarks are directed to Mike @2:58 pm. I need to read my posts more carefully.
David Axelfraud
November 24th, 2009
3:21 pm
Peter, honestly, I could care less what you think is crazy and what is not. Especially coming from a gal who can’t even put a coherent sentence together.
1: Everything on Earth is under control of God. If you look in Genesis it tells us that everything is for man’s use.
2: Sounds like you have a problem with meat. Unless you are a vegetarian, you can’t really say that killing animals is bad. But still, go and try to tell some Georgia hunters that they can’t kill deer. Let us all know how that turns out.
3: George Bush? Oh, now I get it. This all comes down to the liberal playbook of Bush is evil we are holy.
Look little girl, George Bush didn’t get anyone killed. People who signed up for the military knew EXACTLY what they were getting in to.
Bottom line: Sounds like you were either beaten up as a kid or you blame all of your problems on someone else.
Peter
November 24th, 2009
3:22 pm
Hey retiredds……my comment was pointed towards Mike condescending remark !
David Axelfraud
November 24th, 2009
3:22 pm
Peter @ 3:20, did you take those photos from your imaginary helicopter?
mike
November 24th, 2009
3:23 pm
retiredds –
Split all of the hairs you want, but you are calling Gore a prophet and comparing him to prophets in the Bible.
And yes, the only people who would liken Gore to a biblical prophet is a liberal. I know that many liberals have trouble admitting that they are liberal, preferring “progressive” or some such twaddle, but yes you seem to be a liberal.