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
mike
November 24th, 2009
3:27 pm
Peter –
Do you think your sneering comments towards Axelfraud were not “condescending”?
Your hypocrisy is a laughable as your stereotype infested world view.
Peter
November 24th, 2009
3:28 pm
Ok David…….this is really the problem with the Right…… Unaware of religion and ideology outside’s one little world….
A Taoist, or Buddhist would say we are all energy within the Universe, and man is only a small part of the energy field. Not understanding ” Our ” place in this world is really a man made issue !
I know you are hoping all will work out, but the way men pollute without care, is a clear indication, we are part of the problem.
I guess you believe in 2012, or God coming to earth and wiping us out to clean up the place then ?
Because parts of this world is a dump created by men, and for no other reason……..just like animals are extinct because of man.
David Axelfraud
November 24th, 2009
3:28 pm
Peter, now I remember you. You’re that girl who was on here a few months ago crying about other people being mean to you. HA!
David Axelfraud
November 24th, 2009
3:30 pm
Peter, Buddism is self-indulgence. Buddism is full of pot smoking idiots.
2012? Eh, unless you can find 2012 in the Bible, which you won’t, I don’t believe it.
David Axelfraud
November 24th, 2009
3:31 pm
Peter, at least my “little world” is real. Unlike your imaginary unicorn land of fuzzy bears and dope.
Peter
November 24th, 2009
3:32 pm
Republican’s
Like to name call when intelligence fails them…….. They go to church, forget what Sunday was all about, and become nasty hateful folks.
Even George Bush screwed over the Religious Right.
Peter
November 24th, 2009
3:33 pm
HA HA HA……… HA HA HA ….David……..” Buddism is self-indulgence. Buddism is full of pot smoking idiots. ”
HA HA HA……… HA HA HA……… The Dali Lama is really quite a man compared to anyone you know !
David Axelfraud
November 24th, 2009
3:34 pm
Peter, you are a pathetic little girl.
retiredds
November 24th, 2009
3:35 pm
Mike, what is so important about labeling one a liberal or a conservative? On some issues I lean toward being liberal and other issues one would call me conservative. I don’t place any weight on being one or the other. I have found that labeling stifles debate versus enhancing it.
Peter's step mom
November 24th, 2009
3:36 pm
PEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEETER, GET BACK IN THIS TRAILER THIS INSTANT YOUNG LADY! I HAVE HAD IT WITH YOU! NO TURTLE SOUP FOR YOU TONIGHT!
Peter
November 24th, 2009
3:36 pm
Poor little David……. Sticks and stones…Little Man !
JackPoynter
November 24th, 2009
3:37 pm
NaR,
And yet, when you take that tone, the people who are open to reason discount your posts.
Personally, I am not at all convinced by the AGW issue, because there are common-sense issues that they fail to address, like long-term climatological issues, that go back millions of years. I can see the time series of the published data, and the swings of the climate, some of which were immensely much greater than anything the AGW people are talking about.
You can read about the Medieval Warm Period, in Caesar’s Commentaries, when wine grapes were grown in the Thames Valley. You can read about the colonization of Greenland, and the death of the colony of Vikings there as temperatures fell. You can read about the Miocene period, when all the world was much warmer than it is now for a very long period of time indeed, and our hairy ancestors evolved as they were forcefully stressed by evolutionary pressures. You can read about periodic glaciations, and the inter-stadials…and none of this had anything to do with industrial pollution.
Further, the science fails the smell test, because of the emotional reactions of the people involved. And, if you are honest with yourself, you can see that most of the emotion is on the AGW side. In every debate to which I have listened, including one on NPR, the audience starts out on the AGW side, the AGW side says everybody hates us and don’t want us to succeed, the anti side presents arguments, and the AGW side says again everybody hates us and don’t want us to succeed. Then they poll the audience, and the audience has swung to the anti side. I suspect that the reason is because the only people presenting verifiable scientific fact are on the anti side, and the pro side is all about emotion. But then I’ve only heard a few of those, the anti side stopped participating at some point, however much the pro side asks for debate.
But I am willing to be convinced. Who wouldn’t want to be the brave scientist that saves the situation, like the folks in “It came from beneath the sea,” and “Them,” and all those other 1950’s films which came out at the time Boomer’s opinions on science and business and the military were being molded? All that is necessary for me to buy in is for the science to become open and verifiable and subject to a vigorous debate. And for the financial positions of the AGW folks to be made public, so that we can see whose ox is being gored when the anti-AGW folks debate…
That is why this issue of ‘ClimateGate’ is rapidly becoming very important, because those of us who are not climatologists, and who do not have access to the data nor the tools to be able to process the data, need to be able to trust those who do. And as of right now, I don’t. And my trust level is rapidly receding, the more I read, the more reticent the people at the CRU remain, and the longer this goes without full disclosure.
Well, that’s a heck of a lot more than I started to say when I started this post.
But the Pro-AGW folks are not doing themselves any favors when they irritate the other side. Just something to think about.
JP
Peter
November 24th, 2009
3:38 pm
Been to Grand Cayman Island ? Great turtle soup….why ?
Because they have a Turtle farm there…… Do you Get out much ?
Little Man !
David Axelfraud
November 24th, 2009
3:38 pm
Peter writes: Sticks and stones…Little Man !
So, you like little men and sticks? Huh, you are one weird chick.
Kyle Wingfield
November 24th, 2009
3:39 pm
Peter: First, Antarctic ice hasn’t been diminishing…see here: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=40042 and here: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/10/06/antarctic-ice-melt-at-lowest-levels-in-satellite-era/
Second, I never said I did know what was happening, only that there are too many holes in what the warmists say and too many developments that weren’t predicted by the models. Hence, the need for more debate, more examination, etc.
NeverTrustARepublican
November 24th, 2009
3:41 pm
Kyle, they’ve proclaimed themselves experts, or actually others have because I don’t think I’ve ever heard a real scientist claim expertise just curiuosity, because they’ve done the work necessary. You?
Less politics? Your position is nothing but politics and if you don’t think that the the tone of your article sreams ‘they’re hiding the fact that it’s all a scam’ then you’re being intellectually dishonest. Sorry, you’re not quite a good enough writer to mask intent. Maybe next year.
So these ‘facts’ that most are posting, do these include the Biblical references, swipes at Al Gore and Hollywood, and communist/socialist (intetresting mix) conspiracy theories? You don’t want facts, you want controversy to undermine the facts.
As for continuing the conversation, well, you have all the power there, don’t you big guy. Not that you’d ’stifle dissent’……..
Kyle Wingfield
November 24th, 2009
3:41 pm
Peter and Axelfraud: Let’s get back to the topic.
mike
November 24th, 2009
3:42 pm
Peter –
“Like to name call when intelligence fails them…….. They go to church, forget what Sunday was all about, and become nasty hateful folks.”
And you think that mindless stereotyping of all who do not share your narrow minded views is anything other than “nasty and hateful”.
Your hypocrisy is laughable and seems to be endless.
Peter
November 24th, 2009
3:42 pm
Here you go………..little man………
Changes in Arctic sea ice coverage from 1978 to 2008.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/video/2009/oct/14/arctic-sea-ice-coverage
Changes in Arctic sea ice coverage from 1978 to 2008 developed by Ignatius Rigor at the University of Washington, Seattle Applied Physics Lab. Pulses depict the annual expansion and contraction of the sea ice from winter to summer. Red dots represent the buoys that measure the ice.
mike
November 24th, 2009
3:43 pm
Peter –
And your point is?
Copying and pasting random old articles is not making an argument.
Peter
November 24th, 2009
3:43 pm
Thanks Kyle……. gosh why do folks like to go that way ?
mike
November 24th, 2009
3:45 pm
A) Peter said that conservatives “like to name call when intelligence fails them……”
B) Peter said “Here you go………..little man………”
C) Peter is a hypocrite.
Kyle Wingfield
November 24th, 2009
3:48 pm
NeverTrust: I haven’t stifled debate on here, only cases of personal insult-slinging between readers. And I won’t stifle it now. I just wanted to explain why I don’t see the point in continuing to answer comments which don’t move the conversation forward.
Peter
November 24th, 2009
3:49 pm
Hey Kyle….What is happening to the Glaciers at our own Glacier National Park ?
Are the getting bigger or smaller ?
David Axelfraud
November 24th, 2009
3:50 pm
Peter @ 3:42, either you are completely retarded or you can’t read. I already stated that the Earth changes. Ice caps melt then they come back. It’s been that way since the beginning. I stated that NO scientist can agree on WHAT causes it. You stupidly posted rhetoric about things that have NOTHING to do with this topic. Like shooting wolves and eating monkey brains.
Peter
November 24th, 2009
3:52 pm
David……… shooting wolves and eating monkey brains are nor different than pollution by man….in fact no different than religion……..all man made.
NeverTrustARepublican
November 24th, 2009
3:52 pm
‘…too many developments that weren’t predicted by the models’
Ever ran a model of this or any complexity? Basically, it’s trying to recreate the entire planet including atmosphere in mathematical terms. And you want no holes?! Again, you’re showing you, excuse the term, I don’t mean it as a pejorative, ignorance. I have this ongoing theme with my two young sons; the danger is not wwhat you don’t know but what you don’t know that you don’t know.
David Axelfraud
November 24th, 2009
3:52 pm
Peter @ 3:49, can you show any proof that the glacier problems are man made?
David Axelfraud
November 24th, 2009
3:55 pm
Peter, ??????????????? The mind boggles. Seriously, you have some whacked out view of global warming.
Bottom line: You are WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY out of your league on this topic. Go try your hand over on Tuckers blog. She loves her some crazies like you.
Peter
November 24th, 2009
3:58 pm
David….what do you know ?
You don’t have any argument what so ever about this……and saying God controls all is NOT an argument at all, merely an opinion.
David Axelfraud
November 24th, 2009
3:58 pm
mike, Peter is not really a hypocrite. Peter is more like the kid in school who gets beat up all the time for playing with GI Joe dolls while he should be doing Algebra.
David Axelfraud
November 24th, 2009
4:00 pm
Peter, God is not an argument for this topic? Huh, because for the last 2000 years He has been.
Bottom line: You can’t prove global warming is man made. Al Gore is a loser who doesn’t have any friends. Sort of like you.
Kyle Wingfield
November 24th, 2009
4:01 pm
NeverTrust: I’d be less concerned about the models failing to predict things — you know, like a decade-long hiatus from global warming itself — if we weren’t being asked to base the regulation of trillions of dollars worth of our economy on their predictions. And to do it right now (OK, next month), even as a number of responsible climate scientists, including AGW proponents, say we can’t explain these unexpected developments.
Do the scientists have more right than they have wrong? Surely they do. Do they know enough for us to act as we’re being asked to act? No.
And to get back to the original theme of this post, that is exactly why these emails are so important. They reveal a group of scientists — small, perhaps, but certainly influential — acting in bad faith. I don’t think we can in good conscience proceed along the path they’ve set out without some re-evaluation.
Peter
November 24th, 2009
4:05 pm
David…..God is your only argument and that is lame period…..calling Al Gore names because he is activist on the subject, makes you look silly.
Now have you anything really to say ?
Something that makes sense here about Global warming ?
JackPoynter
November 24th, 2009
4:09 pm
In reference to receding glaciers in Glacier National Park, they’ve been receding for a long time.
(Warning: it’ll cost you money to view this:)
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70C15F73B5D167A93CAAB178FD85F418385F9
Google search in archives turned up that article from April 1939; the google text reported was:
“Added to this, an eight-year survey of the dozen or so glaciers which are grinding their way down from the 13000-foot peaks of the Yosemite National Park show that the mile-long Lytell and other glaciers in the park are receding at the rate of eight to 20 feet a year.”
The folks who live there tell me it’s because of reduced rainfall. Furthermore you should be aware that rising temps are not the only thing that cause glacial fields to shrink; colder temps cause less snowfall (fewer storms, remember “too cold to snow?”).
David Axelfraud
November 24th, 2009
4:11 pm
Like I said 9 months ago.
The Carter Ricochet Effect
Jimmy Carter’s presidency offers a lesson in how the purest intentions can lead to the most disastrous results.
An idealistic president takes office promising an era of American moral renewal at home and abroad. The effort includes a focus on diplomacy and peace-making, an aversion to the use of force, the selling out of old allies. The result is that within a couple of years the U.S. is more suspected, detested and enfeebled than ever.
No, we’re not talking about Barack Obama. But since the current administration took office offering roughly the same prescriptions as Jimmy Carter did, it’s worth recalling how that worked out.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704779704574553442202536968.html
NeverTrustARepublican
November 24th, 2009
4:12 pm
Again, what you don’t know…
Models are never the sole basis for any decision. They’re useful tools to test a hypothesis but there’s much more to it than that. That’s where the ‘expert’ part comes in.
How are we being asked to act? And, when would you like us to do something? When atmospheric carbon gets to, say 349 ppm, when we have some extra cash, when you finish your rewrite of the seminal CO2 paper?
Wow, acting in bad faith. Pot, meet kettle.
David Axelfraud
November 24th, 2009
4:15 pm
Interesting, my comments are being deleted but Peters go untouched. That sounded weird.
Kyle Wingfield
November 24th, 2009
4:18 pm
Axelfraud: I’ve been taking down both of your comments that only pertain to yourselves. And I’ll keep doing that until y’all stop attacking each other and resume some semblance of debate.
David Axelfraud
November 24th, 2009
4:21 pm
Kyle, remember, it was Peter’s comment that started this whole argument.
saywhat?
November 24th, 2009
4:32 pm
If you have done any in depth research into who the most rabid AGW deniers are (e.g. Lord Monckton, mentioned by Kyle, is a prime example), you will find that their “research” and activities are by and large funded by the fossil fuel industry. They sold their souls to the highest bidder. Their opinions carry as much weight with me as those of the scientists paid by the tobacco industry to tell us that smoking didn’t cause cancer or lung disease. (Do all you righties still believe that too?) Why would anybody want to share data with somebody like that, whose sole reason for wanting the data was to twist it and willfully misrepresent what it signified?
JackPoynter
November 24th, 2009
4:36 pm
saywhat, Since you have done the research, could you please cite your sources? Thanks.
Mike Fairbanks
November 24th, 2009
4:45 pm
Global warming isn’t a big deal. People always get upset talking about the earth warming.
You do know, I’m sure, that it’s been colder and warmer than it is now throughout history. It doesn’t stay static. It will continue warming….or not.
We can adapt. So what if the ocean levels rise. I live in Atlanta and it would just put me a little bit closer to the beach.
Besides, when Al Gore weighs a proper weight and lives in an 1000 foot off-the-grid house I’ll pay a bit of attention to the guy. He buys carbon credits, all in the hope that some guy on the other side of the world eats one bowl of rice a day and uses a bike.
JackPoynter
November 24th, 2009
4:50 pm
If I were Al Gore, I’d be raving angry about this ClimateGate business, it’s about to cost him a ton of money.
The folks just a few miles west of me got eight inches of snow the other day, I’ve been looking forward to a little weather more in the Georgia range up here.
But that’s one of the reasons that I have to discount AGW, nothing ever goes my way.
NeverTrustARepublican
November 24th, 2009
4:54 pm
Kyle, read Mike Fairbank’s post. That’s your core, the attitude and level of comprehension fostered by the constant barrage of articles like the one you wrote today. Consider your task well done and my username ever more appropriate.
Hatin' on the stupid
November 24th, 2009
5:11 pm
Yawn, manipulating scientific data for political purposes….so Bush era. Next topic, please.
matt
November 24th, 2009
9:16 pm
MMMMMMM………….well done data.
Carbonicus
November 24th, 2009
9:37 pm
Kick Me – You can’t be serious! As Kyle explains, many of the people involved in this scandal ARE the IPCC scientists (Jones, Mann, Trenberth and many others).
You show your lack of intelligence on this subject when you blindly refer to the IPCC as “the experts” and refer to a supposed “consensus” of 10,000 scientists. The actual number of scientists who wrote the Summary for Policymakes in the last (4th) IPCC assessment report was approx. 52. That’s not a typo, you can check it for yourself.
On top of this, scores of scientists have dropped out of the IPCC because of the lack of scientific rigour in the IPCC process.
You are obviously not aware of the Oregon Petition, which has over 30,000 signatures of scientists who disagree with the supposed “consensus”, including over 9,000 with PhD’.
The IPCC and these scientists are a fraud, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.
As you are about to see for yourself, a number of us are now going to sue NASA, NOAA, NCDC, NCAR, and any and every other govt. scientific agency who ever took a penny of taxpayer money to force them to disclose their files. When this information comes to the fore, this goose is cooked.
Before you blindly accept the findings of the IPCC and its supposed consensus, next time do the research yourself so you don’t look so foolish in a public forum.
Meanwhile, sit back and enjoy the coming “global warming” science meltdown.
Carbonicus
November 24th, 2009
9:43 pm
SayWhat? – You show your lack of personal research into this topic. It is true that some NGO and other skeptics have, in fact, been funded by major oils. But the amount of funding received by scientists promoting anthropogenic “global warming” Thermageddon is orders of magnitude greater than the funding received by “deniers” from fossil fuel corporations.
Either you know this is true but are merely a hypocrite, or you didn’t know this until now. Don’t take my word for it, go chase the information yourself.
JackPoynter
November 25th, 2009
5:26 am
Senator Inhofe will begin a Congressional Inquiry into the matter.
Parliament has begun an inquiry.
Doctor Phil Jones has been asked to resign.
The last time I looked, the major networks were not carrying the story.
Google reports 1700+ hits on this story worldwide.
I think that brings it up to date.