The good and the bad of the CRU email scandal
If you follow the slightly not mainstream media, then it is hard to have missed the news that emails from the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit have been released with some of the more damning content being distrubuted quite widely on the web.
[Ed's note: Actually, do visit the original list of emails and randomly click on them or search for specific things like FOI! At the Dappled Planet we did.. and we found most emails were HIGHLY incriminating with extensive discussions about supressing data and how to avoid giving information if requested under the FOI (e.g. how to suppress giving out all the code - delete every 10th line...Or this recent email where some scientists are actively discussing the fact the data is nto valid and warming simply isn't happening fast enough to satisfy the governmental powers...)- and this is not the stuff being reported in the blogs!]
What these emails and documents show is a handful of prominant scientists who support man-made or anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theories colluding (one might say) to ‘doctor’ or loose the data which doesn’t fit the theory and also try to force people to not submit papers to a journal in an attempt to ruin its reputation. There will probably be other damning emails and documents that will emerge as well.
Worse, this data forms just about the entire basis the IPCC claims that there is AGW happening! If this data is wrong or not reflective of the truth, then this makes many of the extreme claims of the IPCC wrong which means it is wrong at this time to create policies based on scientific data which is demonstrably questionable.
That these emails are authentic is not in doubt – some of the scientists whose emails have been revealed doing the rounds of some heavy spin doctoring to try and ‘qualify’ their statements. Some media sources are up in arms over the legality of the leaks – as if that is essential given many media’s desire to blow open secrets!. Maybe the emails were hacked, although it sounds like they had been compiled as part of a Freedom of Information request which was being thwarted, or maybe they were leaked by a whistleblower. But those emails are real, the scientists in question have been colluding to fudge data for 10 years now. What does this mean?
Well the good news is it might finally force the whole issue of AGW out in the open! That has to be a good thing. As readers are aware, here at the Dappled Planet you could put the whole issue for us like this: (1) Is warming happening? Yes… although it is quite benign at this time, (2) Is man causing this warming? Probably only in a very small, insignificant part and (3) Can we stop global warming if we stop burning fossil fuels? No.
So, we are left with the fact our planet is dynamic, it is changing, it might be warming – rapidly or slowly, we don’t know although we suspect slowly and if CO2 emissions aren’t controlling it then regulating the human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere isn’t going to stop warming. Which means we better adapt to climate change on this planet! And of course when we do that, we’ll probably find a lot of our environmental woes stem from other more easily remedied human actions.
But what about the emails? Well, for starters they are a HUGE blow to government’s wanting a new source of revenue, as well as companies who were all hoping to profit from the so-called Cap and Trade schemes for CO2. Last week, it was unlikely the US President was going to attend the Copenhagen Climate talks in Copenhagen as they clashed with receiving his Nobel Peace Prize. Now suddenly he is opening it. It is very important at this time for governments to unite and hang their reputation on questionable data because to do anything else would mean possibly loosing an enormous cash cow….
What about all the media outlets which have been screaming the ’science is settled’ for the last 5 or 6 years? Well, they seem to be remarkably silent. We went and tried to information about the CRU email leak at websites such as BBC and CNN. We had to dig very deep – to only find the odd opinion piece. Other media outlets like CBS, ABC, NBC (USA), Fairfax (Australia) and CBC (Canada) are all but ignoring it. At best, by plugging in search terms into their websites, you may find someone has managed to sneak in an opinion piece - not an article at all by a full time journalist or a headline news item, just an opinion piece by a blogger or contrinutor to the media. That is disgraceful! This is major news because it calls into doubt the entire legitimacy of the climate talks in 2 weeks time, talks which might have a huge and largely negative impact on the lifestyle of people across this planet.
But sadly, and possibly the ugliest thing of all, is it calls into question the scientific process. A few years ago reputation of stem-cell research was set back by the actions of one Korean scientist who fudged data. People have died because of pharmaceutical studies not being transparent about side effects. But the fact that scientists who probably for the most part do scientific work felt compelled to discuss applying statistical trickery, threatening people and ‘loosing’ data from one of the biggest data sets on temperature collated so far just because the result doesn’t fit the theory…. In the cold dispassionate world of science, that is high treason!
The beauty of science is when done correctly and not massaged into something unrecogniseable, it is pretty inarguable. For years many scientists have been unable to get information published that questions the so-called proof of AGW. Many just want to present a balanced picture of the vast body of data and factors which contribute to climate change. But basied media outlets and environmental fanatics like Ed Beagley want the public to ONLY listen to Climate Scientists on the issue – and ignore weathermen, geologist and physicists who all contribute to our understanding of climate on this planet (watch his rant below).
Let us not forget, climate scientists are for the most part mathematically modelling data – they are not checking if the Earth’s history does back them up as geologists do, or accounting for all the other variables and assumptions they couldn’t squeeze into their mathematical program as physicists and meterologists do. But geologists have worked out the temperatures AND CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere going back over 600 million years, physicists can tell us more about the sun than a computer model – and at the end of the day… the source of surface heat on this planet is largely that big ball of fire in the sky – it is going to have an impact!
It also calls into question the peer-review process for scientific papers – something Ed Beagley seemed to think was infallible. How infallible is the process when most of the papers submitted are being reviewed by (1) people with like minded ideas and (2) people who have probably co-authored many times with the authors of the submitted paper? That introduces bias right there! And this isn’t a flaw with just peer-reviews of climate papers – the same thing is seen quite frequently in papers concerning pharmaceuticals or genetics.
The good thing about media today is no matter how much the mass media outlets may want to distort and supress data contrary to their platforms, there are is now a plethora of blogging outlets which allows people to get out alternate news and view points. If nothing else, this should help stimulate the scientific process – science happens because people question what is going on around them. Usually when the science is ’settled’ it just means one aspect of a theory is settled – plenty more questions usually open up. The same thing has happened with global warming. Geologists have been quite cosy with the idea the planet is warming now for decades because the rocks tell us so. Physicists are generally OK with the planet cooling a little right now because the sun is being quite calm (for a ball of fire burning at 6000C at its surface and 15,000,000C in the middle…).
But does the science support man-made CO2 being the sole factor in climate change on the planet? No. Far from it. And that is what needs to be debated and if “Climate Gate” can bring that out in the open and force political and environmental groups to really present a cast iron case that CO2 and ONLY CO2 is causing climate change, only then can we really truly proceed with CO2 emission control.
After all, have you ever wondered why chloroflurocarbons or CFCs were banned almost immediately when it was revealed they were having a devastating impact on the ozone layer, but after nearly 20 years of campaigning by Al Gore to start a Cap and Trade scheme for CO2 emissions, there is still nothing firm in place? Its because there was almost no question about CFCs contributing significantly to ozone depletion, but there are a lot of questions about CO2 being the sole cause of climate change on this planet…
Lets now have a truly open discussion about climate change on this planet – one which includes the sceptics as well as the ‘believers.’ Let the real scientfic process begin, removed of politics and money on this issue. Because only then, do we at the Dappled Planet, believe the human race can move forward with rectifying the other damaging things mankind is doing to our fragile environment!
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:52 pm
[...] « The good and the bad of the CRU email scandal Who is seeking the easier way [...]