Climategate — All You Need To Know
Dec 2nd, 2009 by Richard
Most people who follow the climate debate — and many who do not — will have heard about the so-called Climategate. In a nutshell, hackers stole 13 years of emails from leading climate scientists at Hadley Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the UK’s University of East Anglia, and published them on the web for all to see.
Embarrassing, to say the least! And so we see researchers talking trash, musing about tricks to coax trends out of data, puzzling over downward blips in the temperature record, and pondering ways to discredit their critics.
But the skeptics are having a field day, pulling quotes here and there that prove all manner of malfeasance, including proof that climate scientists killed John F. Kennedy, and that they were behind the infamous decision to change the Coca-Cola recipe.
Honestly, if you’re looking for a smoking that disproves global warming, you won’t find it. And that’s because there’s so little to be found. What global warming deniers can’t seem to get through their thick skulls is that four major climate research centers exist, including Hadley. If any one of them had been cooking the books, it would have been apparent.
But, as the graph above shows, NOAA, NASA, HADCRU and JMA show a remarkably similar temperature record. To doubt their results, you would have to believe that:
I joke, but Climategate does raise one serious matter: a few Hadley researchers discussed ways to avoid complying with Freedom of Informtion requests. If they acted, then their actions were stupid and illegal.
Let me say that again. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
What could have caused them to act so rashly? Perhaps being subjected to 58 FOI requests over a six-day period, and hundreds over the last few years. In a nutshell, were being hounded by non-scientists who, in most cases, don’t know their ass from their elbow.
But I’m with Dr. Jim Hansen on the issue. Ninety-eight percent of climate data is available for all to see, but we need to bump that up to 100 percent, as they do at NASA, to ensure complete and utter transparency. Here’s Hansen’s take:
No, [the emails] have no effect on the science. The evidence for human-made climate change is overwhelming… [The hacked emails] indicate poor judgment in specific cases. First, the data behind any analysis should be made publicly available. Second, rather than trying so hard to prohibit publication of shoddy science, which is impossible, it is better that reviews, such as by IPCC and the National Academy of Sciences, summarize the full range of opinions and explain clearly the basis of the scientific assessment. The “contrarians” or “deniers” do not have a scientific leg to stand on. Their aim is to win a public relations battle, or at least get a draw, which may be enough to stymie the actions that are needed to stabilize climate.
People like Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit and Anthony Watts at Watts Up don’t have to concern themselves with truth. They play a cynical public relations game in which they smear their betters, and line their own pockets — even as people in the developing world watch helplessly as rising sea levels wash away their homes.
Frankly, I don’t know how they sleep at night.
________________
For more reasoned perspective on Climategate, see:
Real Climate: A number of articles, beginning with this one.
Greenfyre’s: Always smart and entertaining
Joe Romm at Climate Progress: He has something new everyday, including this commentary.
It’s not that surprising that NASA and CRU follow so closely. As a scientist in NZ recently said concerning their data analysis and defending their tweaks, they did the same tweaks as everyone else! Which is not exactly a great defense.
But hey, dipshit, here’s an actual scientist, Richard Feynman to spell it out for you. There’s more in that essay, that you should examine, like Feynman describing what integrity actually is compared to Phil Jones saying he won’t give data to people who only want to critique him with it because he’s got 25 years invested in his data.
“We have learned a lot from experience about how to handle some of
the ways we fool ourselves. One example: Millikan measured the
charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops, and
got an answer which we now know not to be quite right. It’s a
little bit off, because he had the incorrect value for the
viscosity of air. It’s interesting to look at the history of
measurements of the charge of the electron, after Millikan. If you
plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little
bigger than Millikan’s, and the next one’s a little bit bigger than
that, and the next one’s a little bit bigger than that, until
finally they settle down to a number which is higher.
Why didn’t they discover that the new number was higher right away?
It’s a thing that scientists are ashamed of–this history–because
it’s apparent that people did things like this: When they got a
number that was too high above Millikan’s, they thought something
must be wrong–and they would look for and find a reason why
something might be wrong. When they got a number closer to
Millikan’s value they didn’t look so hard. And so they eliminated
the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that.
We’ve learned those tricks nowadays, and now we don’t have that
kind of a disease.
”
I think it’s possible that some of us still DO have that disease.
More, I love your defense that includes Hansen’s takedown of Jones while you spin that as a defense of Jones.
Anyway, I consider myself a liberal, a scientist, and not someone who doesn’t believe the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
If Jones violated the FOI and destroyed data, his proper position is not as head of CRU but rotting in prison like any corrupt government official who violates FOI.
Well that should be: “and someone who doesn’t believe the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
Finally, when you write, “they play a cynical public relations game in which they smear their betters, and line their own pockets”
That’s basically an ad-hominem attack that one would hope would be beneath you, contrast it with “Jones played a cynical game of manipulation in which he garnered $18 million dollars of taxpayer grants.”
You guys are really disgusting in how you are perverting the scientific method.
Good article. Thanks.
Can I suggest you avoid referring to the stolen emails as ‘Climategate’. It’s playing in to the hands of the Deniers. It suggests there was wrong-doing when, in fact, there is no evidence of anything that undermines the data or the science.
Anon: why be anonymous? Easier to call names? Are you upset with the writing or are you disputing the findings of the four agencies?
As for wanting to find a way to ignore FOI requests? Point out one civil servant who wouldn’t like to do the same. While complying with such requests is completely necessary in a democracy, they are time consuming and expensive to taxpayers. I have seen one such response to a request that took up half a room with boxes filled with paper. Rotting in prison for not responding to a FOI request? Seriously? And if he assaulted someone or committed armed robbery? We send child molesters to prison for as little as a few months but not responding to a FOI request demands rotting in prison? Does that really make sense to you?
> Frankly, I don’t know how they sleep at night.
I share your disbelief. These people are working towards inaction that will result in the death of millions.
DavidCOG,
Inaction kills? Do you know what effect ethanol mandates are having. Do you understand what the ban on DDT has had in terms of human life. Extreme environmentalism kills.
The movement has been hijacked, as it has many times. Why? Who wouldn’t want to save the earth?
Colleen,
Not sure where you live, but where I live, my country has a proud and robust history of respect for anonymity, going back to our founders and recognized by the Supreme Court. See the EFF for more. That you don’t know this shows your ignorance. That you disrespect that shows your disrespect and signals you have some privileged position that requires no anonymity. That you use it as an attack is ad hominem.
Regarding throwing FOI (or FOIA) violators in jail, absolutely. Almost by definition they are destroying public property, obstructing justice, obstructing an investigation. I say that not because I think Phil Jones is a guy who should rot in jail, but because I think any government official who is subject to FOI/FOIA requests has been briefed on the law, and should be striving to honor those requests in a timely, expeditious, accurate manner.
How you can justify violation of FOI/FOIA is beyond me. Is it because this time it was Phil Jones, and not Gordon Brown or Dick Cheney?
If you want to argue that prison time for child molesters is insufficient you go argue for that, maybe I’ll join in.
I am arguing that it’s not up to government thugs to decide arbitrarily how to handle FOI/FOIA requests. I am glad to see you are on the side of thugocracy.
ANON…
Here’s the deal.
I have no respect for your position because you hide behind anonymity. You come to One Blue Marble, and you insult my readers, and you misstate my position. You’ve also missed the essential thrust of what Colleen said, too. She’s all for FOI in a democracy, just as I am.
So you’re behaving like a jerk. Or should I call you a dipshit.
In my country, we presume innocence until proven otherwise. You haven’t one shred of evidence that the climate scientists involved have done anything untoward, so you have nothing but conjecture and innuendo. At the moment, we merely have info on some private conversations, and if you really are a scientist (which I sincerely doubt), then you know that most of what they talked about is innocuous.
But if — if — the scientists at the CRU have cheated, then I’m all for the penalties that follow.
So you are now being warned. My house, my rules. I won’t let you insult my readers. If you persist in doing so, your comments will be moderated.
If you have something to say, stop behaving like a jerk.
Dearest anon: Perhaps you misread my line that read that I believe in FOI and that responding to such requests is a necessity in a democracy. My comment about prison was your desire to have FOI violators rot in prison. Whether a prison sentence is appropriate is for a court to determine; the sentence should, however, fit the crime. Rotting in jail seems rather excessive.
Hardy…
Everyone seriously interested in this issue has known that biofuels were a mistake from the very beginning. They were a politically motivated solution designed to keep us wedded to a fossil fuel economy.
And are you seriously arguing that we should let 5-7 billion people die because elimantiing DDT had some unintended consequences? (And, as I’m sure you know, DDT had stopped working because mosquitoes adapted, so it wouldn’t have made much a difference if we had kept spraying). Admittedly, I’m providing a worst-case projection for deaths from global warming over the next 100 years, but you need to understand the stakes.
Moving to a low-carbon economy will save trillions every year on healthcare costs; maybe we can use some of that largesse to fight malaria safely.
Colleen,
Consider all that we have learned from FOI/FOIA requests.
Imagine all of that gone, pfft, because the recipients destroyed the data.
Yeah, I think they should rot in jail for destroying evidence and obstructing justice.
Here is a page with some interesting history and cases of FOIA: http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/foia.html
How or why you compare that to the penalties for child molesting is silly (sorry Richard) [silly's OK, actually] because this isn’t really a discussion about equalizing sentencing.
If in this case, the data was manipulated in such a way that facilitated Phil Jones defrauding the taxpayers of $22M in grant money, I’d say prison was definitely called for.
Richard, you can do whatever the [crazy talk, crazy talk] you want to do, and I’m sure you will. You’re clearly a [venerable insult once used frequently in Hill Street Blues, well done!] with no understanding of anonymity, or science, or integrity. But [insult, crazy talk, crazy talk, cheap shot against my parents, both deceased, and against me].
Enjoy your day. {Irony]
The first line of this article uses the words, “Climate debate”. Personally I believe there actually isn’t a debate; we are long past that phase. Scientific data is quite clear on this issue. If that weren’t enough, simply observing the world we live in is even more convincing. Yet I remain tolerant of those who are not aware of what’s going on around them. I know there are many of these folk among us. Also there are many who find it difficult or to frightening to face the data and are unable to take action. I don’t consider any of these people my adversaries, I consider them in need, and I always help them to understand what’s at stake and how to help. To wrap up I’d be willing to recognise The debate has changed from, “Is there climate change?” to “Why some folks don’t want to take responsibility in helping mother earth”. I find that much more interesting and appropriate, considering what’s at stake.
David… I called it Climategate because I wanted people to read it and, for better or worse, that’s the top search term on Google. But I don’t disagree with your assessment.
Steve… that’s a terrific comment. I’ve been meaning to post a number of terrific links this week, including a story about the psychology of climate change.
I’m actually interested, believe it or not, in knowing if Anon (who isn’t so anonymous… each post comes with accurate GSP readings) actually believes that the planet is cooking.
Thanks to everyone else who commented and offered thoughts.