Climategate
 

How come there’s no debate
about the recent climategate?
Don’t we care?
Or don’t we dare?
Well here you go. It’s not too late.

I assume most of you have seen this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydo2Mwnwpac

Alan Sullivan has been annotating the story on his blog “Fresh Bilge”. Here’s one of his recent links:

CLIMATEGATE: CAUGHT GREEN-HANDED!
COLD FACTS ABOUT THE HOT TOPIC OF GLOBAL TEMPERATURE CHANGE AFTER THE CLIMATEGATE SCANDAL

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...%20Scandal.pdf

Note that it's not a hacker who spilled the beans, as the mainstream media initially reported, but a whistleblower. And apparently the BBC sat on the whistleblower's file for a month...

What gets me is not so much the faking of evidence, a very serious thing in itself, but the ensuing attempt to cover it up. The thinking must have been to try to save the climate conference in Copenhagen. Duuuhhh!!!

Here’s Christopher Booker in today’s Telegraph, the only British newspaper as far as I can see that isn't playing ostrich:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...the-world.html

Just what the **** is going on?
Duncan

Duncan--I think it's becasue this issue is like abortion, pacifism, etc. People have made up their minds and nothing is going to change them, so they aren't really interested in a debate or in evidence for or against the validity of the idea.

I think it's a primary example of what has not generally been said about the climate debate: the scientific community has a big stake it. If people believe that global warming or whatever you call it is occurring, science institutes and research universities will get billions in research monies, which, of course, they want. So they have a vested interest in frightening the general public with apocalyptic scenarios so they can then cash in on fear (rather like churches do). Just like "The Coming Ice-Age" back in the 1980s.

Since science has largely taken the place of religion for many people and speaks with the authoritative, prophetic voice that was formerly reserved for the Church or for self-styled prophets, people listen to it with the same passivity and gullability religious enthusiasts heeded such organizations and individuals in former ages.

dwl

Duncan,

I don't understand the stakes people have in this. Whatever they are, they seem to have far more to do with political preference than actual reality. How so ever that may be, what strikes me is the tone of certainty some of the people jumping on this issue seem to be using. I've got three undergraduate credits in meteorology, and that makes me a bleeding expert compared to some of these people, and yet they get online and say things that imply that truth exists, and they have access to it. Some of these columnists are the same ones that applauded when ronald reagan said trees cause air pollution... ;) What was in it for them then? What's in it for them now? And why all the extreme emotion?

Let's see... The ice shelves are breaking off Antarctica. Soon the Arctic will be ice free in summer, enough so that there'll be a northwest passage. Seen pictures of Kilimanjaro lately? How have ski resorts in the Alps been doing the last several years? Just look out in your garden some spring: last year, we had forsythia and japonica blooming *after* the azaleas. These people remind me of that old joke from the movies: "Who are you going to believe- me, or your own lying eyes."

Why are they jumping all over isolated cases of misconduct? If they were consistent, they'd have to reexamine some of their other positions in the same terms. But I suppose that would be asking for too much rationality... ;)

Thanks,

Bill

It's interesting, but it's only one university, and not a particularly good one at that.
Since when did East Anglia get to lead the climate change campaign?

To be fair, East Anglia, as a University, is especially acclaimed in one field - Creative Writing. Hmmmm....

It looks as if they really used their imaginations in this case.

dwl

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/sc...ategate&st=cse

and

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.co...ategate&st=cse

Here's an idiot's guide by a non-scientist.

1. Is the climate changing? Yes/No

2. If Yes then is it because of something we humans are doing? Yes/No

3. If Yes then can we reverse it? Yes/No

4. If Yes then should we reverse it? Yes/No

5. If Yes then what do we do?

1. Yes it does seem bloody wet round here. I'll give this a tentative yes.

2-5. I haven't the slightest idea. And don't tell me. I still won't have the slightest idea. I have to take it on trust.

6. Why should I trust you?

I'm Al Gore.Of course you can trust me.
You're a politician. I wouldn't trust you to tell me the time.

I'm a scientist. Of course you can trust me.
The why do you keep on LYING to me?

I'm not lying? Why should I lie?
For money. For career advancement. Because you are so certain you are right that you can't be bothered to try and convince fools like me. Scientists have behaved in this way in the past.

Scientists A,B,C,D,E...... all agree with me.
What about scientists Y and Z?
They are not real scientists.
How so?
Because if they were real scientists then they would agree with me.

That is as far as I have got with this one.

None of us should dare express an opinion since none of us knows. Caution and respect should be the guidelines.

Let's not have a "did" didn't" argument. Let's all keep reading and watching, and voting.

Roger

The AGWs won't convince me of anything as long as they just flatly deny that there's any truth in what the so-called sceptics are saying. As John says, the AGWs don't bother to explain anything to us. All they can say is: "We're right. All you non-believers can go to hell!"

I'm as concerned for the environment as anyone, but I can't ignore what's been exposed. And I just hate cover-ups. Sure, I understand a lot's been invested in this climate conference. The most positive metaphor I can find is "Nelson-like blindness". But most of all I think: "The Emperor has no clothes!"

Duncan

What Janet said.

If some of the more notorious emails are genuine, this casts some doubt on the credibility of some members of the proportionally small number of scientists who are involved in the compilation and analysis of global climate data. And that's all that can be said, really; "climategate" does not amount to a refutation of the science that has been devoted to this issue--rather, it seems like a series of stuff-ups in communication, protocol and judgement by relatively few individuals.
It is not a good look for them, of course, and sucks a lot of oxygen (!) from their campaign.