TH!NK post
This article is archived. Comments are closed.
Climategate - I doubt it very highly.
Published 24th November 2009 - 12 comments - 964 views -
Eammon's recent blog "Climategate" brought attention to the hacking of e-mails from East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, and the supposed "conspiracy" it brings to light. Sceptics around the world are jumping up and down rubbing their hands in glee... Climate Change was a hoax.
Some of the statements made in the e-mails (if they are genuine) do look questionable, and would certainly damage the credibility of the CRU. So does this spell the end of the global warming debate?
When I look at supposed conspiracy theories (because if this was a hoax then it would amount to a huge conspiracy) I ask myself how many people had to collude in order for it to work.
A conspiracy to boost share prices at a company for instance - not so many people. The moon landing on the other hand - huge numbers of scientists across the globe. 9/11 and Pearl Harbour - again enormous numbers of people (both powerful and otherwise).
Climate Change... ditto. The numbers involved would be huge!
So I ask myself what is the likelihood that thousands of scientists, politicians, activists and business leaders have all decided to "pretend" that the data points to global warming when it doesn't.
First of all, who's paying them, who's organising them, and who started the whole thing? Someone must have decided to mastermind the excercise, and then set about convincing thousands of people to come along for the ride.
Secondly, why? What would reputable scientists, who spent years trying to build credibility, gain from fabricating data. If a small group had decided to fudge results, what benefit would the rest of the community gain in supporting them?
Anyone in academia knows how eager their peers are to rip apart their work. Any little mistake is jumped upon and waved around for everyone to see. So why would they have all decided to pretend that the data being produced by other scientists was solid when it wasn't?
It doesn't make sense.
Also, let's say those originally involved created the data because they wanted to be famous... part of something big. Unlike the moon landing, or 911 - Climate Change isn't a single historical event. Within the next decade or two we'll know for certain if temperatures keep increasing. If they don't, and the data is wrong, then all those scientists who backed it would lose credibility.
Why would anyone create a lie when they know they'd certainly be caught out?
Anyone looking at the Climate Science data can see it rests on more than a few papers, produced by a few scientists. There are literally thousands of individuals who are currently researching the area, from multiple universities, organisations and institutions. And there are thousands more who have pored over the data to check its veracity.
Aside for a small minority, everyone agrees that the data indicates that the planet is heating up. I for one would find it very hard to believe that they are all part of a giant consipiracy.
Comments
This article is archived. Comments are closed.
About the author
Related posts
- Possibility of climate change by pre-modern farmers?
- India changes stance to push for a global deal at Copenhagen
- My Conceptual Framework on Climate Change
- Club of Rome: the Green Al-Qaeda
- Black Point of the Danube Basin
- Climate Change, Energy and Environment in the Lisbon Treaty
- A Message from Romanian Cyclists for Leaders in Copenhagen
Popular posts
- TCKTCK: Got only 10 years to save ourselves!
- Denmark cries in Sea of Blood, 950 Whales and Dolphins KILLED…
- Micro pigs - the ultimate sweetheart energy saver
- If you want to see nude people click here
- Do we really care about our planet? Think twice before answering.
- Evolutions in the history of Environment Part 2
- Bunnies for fuels: not a good story to share in a grade school classroom
One other point… if we’re talking about conspiracies one might question the timing of this hack. Weeks before Copenhagen - surely not a coincidence.
Jodi,
1) If you want to know, who is organising the alarmists, read my article about the Club of Rome.
2) Do you know the famous Stephen Schneider quote? They believed there would be a warming disaster. Belief. But had no proofs. So they fabricated the evidence. To save the Earth. Pia Fraus. Precautionary principle.
3) Planet is NOT heating up. Not in the last 10 years. Stop saying that, please.
4) IPCC is not a huge number of people. Cca 50 people (all friends, and coleagues) wrote the things about the causes of warming…. Others are just quoting them in circles.
Did the researchers at University of East Anglia behave bad? Yes.
Was it a conspiracy? No.
The timing is obviously well chosen. At first I thought that the mails may be faked, if they are I guess we will learn after Copenhagen, but obviously whoever had them had them before and chose to publish them now.
There was a similar case in Sweden… someone broke the news that there was toxins in the products of one Ecological brand. After some weeks we learned that it was not, there had simply been a “mistake” in the laboratory. Yeah right…
Black PR.
Daniel, both (un)RealClimate guru Mann and Mr. Jones admitted the emails are TRUE. This persuaded me it is not fake.
Read here: http://www.inquisitr.com/48897/climategate-defense-spin-fails/
They just say the quotes are out of context:
“Michael Mann claims, skeptics are “taking these words totally out of context to make something trivial appear nefarious.”
However, which parts of the attempt to delete public data possibly subject to a Freedom of Information request is open to interpretation or lacks context?
Daniel, first read all the e-mails (at Motl’s blog for example). Then come and comment on it.
@ Daniel - it certainly looks bad at this stage but I’m not sure how much of it is taken out of context (i.e. the one about it being a travesty that they can’t explain cooling episodes) or even whether they’re completely real. I guess that will become clear soon.
Like you, I certainly don’t think it brings down all the science around Climate Change (which is unfortunate really, because it would be a damn sight better if it wasn’t occurring!).
I too read George Monbiots’s blog, it’s really good - http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/11/23/the-knights-carbonic/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email.
The fact is it would take a lot more to prove that it’s a conspiracy than a handful of e-mails sent by a very small number of people over a period of 12 odd years.
Whoever hacked in and released this though has certainly succeeded in setting back any efforts to rally people into action.
@Vitezslav - the people who sent the e-mails haven’t verified that the information published is accurate. The university has confirmed their servers were hacked, but they have to cross-check the originals with those posted. Who’s to say that the e-mails weren’t edited before they were “leaked”. I don’t think you can categorically say that they aren’t fake just yet.
Like Daniel says, I’m sure we’ll know after Copenhagen!
Jodi, the impostors have already confirmed, the texts are genuine. I have already said that.
Read here, before you write anything more: http://www.inquisitr.com/48897/climategate-defense-spin-fails/
“Michael Mann claims, skeptics are “taking these words totally out of context to make something trivial appear nefarious.”
@ Vitezslav - Well we’ll just have to see how reflective they are.
One thing I will say is I certainly wouldn’t argue against an inquiry into the e-mails. They are in the public domain now so answers are definitely needed. If they were doctored by whomever hacked the facility then we need to know that. If the scientists were fabricating information, then we should also be aware of that.
That said, while it isn’t beyond the realms of possibility that they did underhand things - I still don’t believe they are part of a worldwide conspiracy. Nor do I think it undermines the science around global warming in general.
Rather than the “random” selection of e-mails/documents published, let’s see them all and let’s find out exactly what’s going on. Clearly it’s only beneficial to determine the truth.
If hockey-stick and other graphs are forgery, it does not undermine the notion, that our warming is unique/unprecedented? Are you kidding?
You seriously believe, that this “bad behaviour” was limited only to the University of East Anglia? You truly think, that the rest of IPCC science is different?
You should read Solomon’s book “Deniers”, which is online
<http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/pages/the-deniers.aspx
It documents, what I was saying to Jorgensen, when I stood up and asked, why skeptics are silenced by censorship.
Climategate is just a tip of the iceberg.
@Vitezslav - thanks for the link. I’m going to read through it…
@ Vitezslav - can I ask you this. Do you believe that climate change is occurring, and that we should do things to mitigate it - but simply not throw money at unprofitable solutions? Or is it that you don’t believe it is occurring, and we shouldn’t be doing anything at all? You have written different things over the last couple of months but I’d be interested in knowing what the “bottom line” of your views are. I.e. are you in the same camp as R.J Tol (i.e you do think it’s an issue but our approach to tackling it should be more cautious) or Joseph Olson (i.e. it’s a total hoax?
Jodi, climate change is occurring. Climate always changes, and always will. It cannot be stopped. Not with the present technology…
“So we should adapt to the new climate. Not waste money on futile attempts to change the climate” (I am quoting the Czech IPCC author Jan Pretel).
We should do only such “green measures” that are cost-effective and which make sense EVEN IF THE MANMADE CO2-FORCING IS JUST A HOAX (which it is).
Example: CCS (storage of CO2 underground) is wrong, because it makes sense only if CO2 influences temperatures.
Example: Cheap nano-solar energy makes sense, because it lowers my electricity bill.
But there is NO HURRY. This (so far halted) warming is not a disaster, it is not unique, CO2 levels do not affect it much).
We can continue increasing our CO2 emissions for another 50 years no problem (and the failure of Kyoto shows we WILL). Then we invent alternative cost-effective solutions and CO2 emissions will stop automatically. No COP15 needed.