Gwynne Dyer: Climategate and disbelief
Last November we had “Climategate”, in which somebody hacked into the e-mails at the University of East Anglia. This person discovered that Professor Phil Jones, head of the university’s Climate Research Unit, had been trying to exclude scientific papers he regarded as flawed from being considered by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
“I can’t see either (paper)...being in the next (IPCC) report,” Jones wrote in 2004. “Kevin (one of Jones’s colleagues) and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what peer-review literature is!” Bad Phil! Slap wristies!
Scientists can be rather unworldly, but within their own little world they are highly competitive and capable of considerable nastiness toward their competitors. (Q: Why are scientific politics so nasty? A: Because the stakes are so small.) It is not clear whether Phil Jones was being serious or only mock-serious in his e-mail, but he certainly could have been planning to do exactly what he said.
Jones was forced to step down as head of the CRU; the hacker (probably a Russian) walked away counting his money. And the blogosphere lit up like a Christmas tree with claims that this incident proved that climate change was a fraud.
Now we have “Glaciergate,” in which it is revealed that a prediction in the last IPCC report that the Himalayan glaciers could all disappear by 2035 was wildly exaggerated.
Some of the biggest glaciers in the Himalayas are so massive and so high that it would actually take them 300 years to melt.
It was a grievous error, and how it got into the IPCC’s 2007 report only compounded the offence. It was based on a casual remark by a single Indian scientist, Syed Hasnain, that found its way into a World Wildlife Fund study (which gave it the respectability of appearing in print), and thence into the IPCC’s 2007 report.
Very unprofessional, and particularly so on the part of IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri, who initially dismissed the work of the geologists who challenged the IPCC’s assertion about glaciers as “voodoo science”.
The blogosphere went wild–and a recent opinion survey in the United States showed that only 57 percent of adult Americans accept the scientific evidence for global warming, down from 77 percent two years ago.
Worse yet, only 36 percent of Americans believe that human activity is the primary cause of the warming.
People who know science and scientists will be disappointed both by the behaviour of Jones and by the glacier incident, but they will not be surprised. This sort of thing happens from time to time, because we are dealing with human beings. But it does not (as the denial brigade insists) discredit the whole enterprise in which they are engaged.
Not all the Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035, but a lot of the ones at lower altitudes will–including some of those that keep the great rivers of Asia full in the summertime. That is important, because when they are gone, people start to starve. And we have all met people who are clever in theory but stupid in practice, like Foolish Phil.
The weight of the evidence rests overwhelmingly on the side of those who argue that climate change is real and dangerous. Ninety-seven or ninety-eight percent of scientists active in the relevant fields are convinced of it; all but a couple of the world’s 200 governments have been persuaded of it; public opinion accepts it almost everywhere except in parts of the “Anglosphere”. The United States, and to a lesser extent Australia, Britain and Canada, are the last bastions of denial.
From being the least ideological countries 50 years ago, when much of the rest of the planet was drunk on Marxist theories, these countries have become the most ideological today. Disbelief in climate change has been turned into an ideological badge worn by the right, and evidence is no longer relevant.
This wouldn’t matter much if the countries in question were Bolivia, Belgium, and Burma, but one of them is really important. Without the United States, we are not going to get a worthwhile global agreement on cutting greenhouse gas emissions. It is starting to look like we won’t have the United States on board.
President Barack Obama will do what he can, but his chance of getting even a very modest bill on emissions cuts through the Senate this year has just dwindled to near zero. The American public, worried about its jobs and its healthcare, doesn’t want to hear about it–and if it does hear, it doesn’t believe.
If the United States is out of the game, then China is out too. Without the participation of the world’s two biggest polluters, jointly accounting for almost half of the human race’s CO2 emissions, there’s not much point in trying for another Kyoto-style deal, even a much better one. If you have any money lying around, put it on geoengineering techniques for keeping the heat down. We’re going to need them.
Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.
Comments
47 Comments
Dave McK
Jan 24, 2010 at 10:57pm
I'll not address the speculation in your article, and you did miss a few links in the chain but I'll just address the conclusion.
There is no reason to believe that any glaciers will be gone by 2035.
Hasnain mentioned it over the phone to New Scientist who printed it which was lit upon by WWF and shown to IPCC. Dr.Lal admits he knew it was ridiculous but left it in because it would get attention and motivate policy makers to take action. (political fiction for an agenda).
Despite the serious protests by real glaciologists, it was used as a poster child of the fear franchise, knowingly fraudulent.
Whereupon, Dr. Pachauri got Dr. Hasnain in his employ through TERI and together they successfully solicited half a million dollars in funds to study the vanishing glaciers. They are extremely opportunistic and rapacious beyond anything in history- the carbon derivatives that make their eyes light up with that lotto look were expected to eventually exceed the value of all the money in the world! That's the stuff hollywood movies are made of.
HerbM
Jan 25, 2010 at 12:10am
It's a long standing and perfidious pattern with many more 'incidents' than those you mention however.
Stations left out that change the results. Lost data. Hockey stick deception. "Reworking" the data when the result don't show what they want (NASA and CRU.) Suspect and secret computer programs with ad hoc code (to get a certain result)...the list goes on and on and on.
SurfaceStations.com shows how bad just the US stations are -- imaging the rest of the world.
The list grows and grows. If "consensus" is built on this -- and science IS NOT done by consensus -- then that consensus was fraudulently obtained.
Maybe none of this proves AGW WRONG, but it certainly shows that it hasn't been proven correct.
Real scientists must go back and actually START to do the science now.
Martin Ackroyd
Jan 25, 2010 at 1:02am
Read the emails. (Google <anglia emails searchable>) . I assume that Gwynne Dyer has not read them or he would not have written this nonsense.
Anyone who reads the emails in context, not to mention the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file, cannot but admit, in their heart of hearts, that a very ugly picture is revealed of falsification of results, victimization of scientists who question these results, manipulation of the scientific review process, conspiracy to circumvent Freedom of Information laws, plus bumbling incompetence resulting in the loss of valuable temperature data.
And these were the members of the "Hockey Team" climate scientists at the heart of writing the IPCC reports.
Gwynne Dyer and other apologists for the Man-Made Global Warming Religion are the real "Deniers" who are having great difficulty coming to terms with having to admit that their Religion is all a hoax based on falsified results.
Peter Main
Jan 25, 2010 at 2:21am
You are quite right when you say "But it does not ... discredit the whole enterprise...".
The thing is that the whole AGW theory always was nonsense and was discredited (amongst thinking people) a long time ago. Basically the IPCC says, the warming cannot be explained by natural causes so it must be man-made CO2. In other words, we don't know what it is so we'll blame it on man. And, with huge amounts of money and political power, the AGW gang have built a massive edifice covered in plate armour. The reason the 'denier brigade', as you call us, lights up the internet like a Christmas tree is because Climategate, Glaciergate (and the latest, Disastergate, on which you have not yet reported) are the first chinks in that armour that are being widely reported. Because of these events it is no longer heresy for mainstream media to suggest that there might be imperfections in the edifice. Soon, you and other 'warmists' (well, you called me a denier) will realise that it's not just a few imperfection but that the whole foundation is rotten.
AJ
Jan 25, 2010 at 6:56am
I have always enjoyed your comments and documentaries but I must say I don't understand the blind acceptance of so many people around this issue.
Please remember the CO2 is not a pollutant, it is esential to all life on earth, without it plant and all life will fail. That it has been turned into a pollutant is mind boggling. Also, climate has always changed.
As I understand it, based on a number of media reports, CO2 accounts for 380/1,000,000 (380PPM) = 0.00038 % of the atmosphere and of that man contributes 5% of the total. One forest fire can wipe out all of Canada's CO2 cuts in a week. Also, weather historians tell us that CO2 increases follow increases in temperature, not lead it. As one person said, "I don't know which is more arrogant, to think that man has caused global warming or that we can stop it".
Compare that to the fact that the atmosphere contains almost 95% water, which is a far more significant GHG, are we going to regulate that next?
The other thing that does not make sense is that based on maybe 30 years worth of now suspect data, we humans are ready to make such major changes that will have an adverse affect on our lives, based on someone's expectations about what might happen in the future. Man's predications for the future have never proven to be correct, before WW1, people were predicting a peaceful and idealistic 20th century. They really got that right.
As has been commented in many places, man has thrived in warmer climates, longer growing seasons mean more food not less, less fuel needs to be burned to provide heat in winter. There is no proof that warmer weather will have any of the disaterous effects being predicted. The problem is not the weather, but the governments who try to keep a hold on their own people, who create most of the problems their people live with due to their own greed and selfishness.
The main issue reveiled by "climate gate" is that when the scientists tried to compare their thorey with reality it failed. So rather then develop a new thorey as any proper scientist would have done, they changed the facts by using real data instead of their proxy data where it suited their purpose. The temperature proxy data showed a cooling trend, while the actual temperatures went up. From where I sit that disproves the theory.
As far as Glaciergate is concerned, the IPCC knew from it's own researchers that the 2035 date was wrong but they made a decision to publish it anyway to get the desired impact with the media and governments. Most news outlets would not be able to get any milage out of most of the content of the IPCC's reports, but it was really easy to get headlines with a major disaster like the glaciers disappearing in 2035 or sooner.
The final knife in the back is that all the discussions about cap and trade is that it does nothing to reduce CO2 emissions, it just moves money around. If it did not promise to cost so much it would be good for a real laugh.
miguel
Jan 25, 2010 at 7:16am
If many nations cut emission levels, but the U.S. and/or China don't, we would see a lot of industry relocate back to the U.S.; something that may be in the back of their minds.
Miguel
DM
Jan 25, 2010 at 9:24am
"The weight of the evidence rests overwhelmingly on the side of those who argue that climate change is real and dangerous"
These are words only, why don't you state the proof. By the way, predictions are not allowed as proof. Here's the logic most of the AGW supporters use, it goes like this; "Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035" => therefore global warming is real.
Another good one is; "storms, extreme weather events will increase" => therefore global warming is real and dangerous.
If you bore down and use your head for something other than a hat rack, all the so called "overwhelming proof" disappears.
seth
Jan 25, 2010 at 11:06am
he sad part of all this is there is a practical and quick way out of this crisis with nuclear power.
Warmists believe we are less than ten years away from a civilization ending peak oil and climate crisis, but also believe we are too dependent on oil imports, and dirty and deadly coal power production which kills several million and sickens hundred's of millions of people worldwide every year, while deniers will only agree that imports and pollution are problems.
A worldwide investment in 10000 new nuclear reactors would be paid for by and would end fossil fuel use, eliminate most air pollution saving millions of lives, end the global warming/ peak oil problem with a 100% elimination of GHG's within a ten year time frame, is a great investment making the economy more efficient, a wonderful job producing economy boost, requires only a small part of our industrial capacity, and pays for itself in less than three years.
Deniers and Warmists both could embrace it.
With mass production nuclear power costs drop to under $1B Gw much less expensive than coal or natural gas generation and 10% the cost of the cheapest renewable. Asian reactor builds now around $1.5 B Gw are trending to the $1B level.
Nuclear fuel supply and waste issues are resolved with already operating and well understood fast reactors.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-kirsch/climate-bill-ignores-our_b_22...
Canada could do its part in the global warming fight with a $150B nominal investment in nuclear power paid for by quickly weaning us off our $100B annual fossil fuel bill.
The US with an $2500B nominal investment in nuclear power paid for by quickly weaning itself off its $1000B annual fossil fuel bill could do the same. Unfortunately it is crippled by inefficient private power companies, a biased Nuclear Rejection Commission and corrupt and litigious political and legal systems, quadrupling nuclear costs and time frames.
By rimming the border with AECL reactors, Canada's very efficient public power companies could make $trillions selling the US nuke power at premium rates, making publicly owned Atomic Energy Canada the world leader in nuclear power, and generating a huge high paying job producing Canadian industry.
This an incredible opportunity for Canada and a lesson to the world in how to get it done.
The biggest problem is a nuclear conversion will put Big Oil out of business in less than ten years and they buy a lot of politicians with their campaign donations.
We need to calling up our politicians and demanding to know the reason for their inaction. Why are they wasting precious time and treasure on silly not so "renewable" projects and even dumber tax schemes like cap n'trade and green taxes.
Are their campaign donations so precious they are choosing to end civilization rather than get off Big Oil's gravy train.
seth
KS
Jan 25, 2010 at 12:08pm
It never fails to surprise me how politically volatile this issue becomes. (Never mind how critical the commentary is). Personally, I think Dyer wrote a good article that addresses the uncertainty of this science well, which this is precisely what the problem is.
AJ: I don't believe any one is arguing that CO2 is a "pollutant". In high concentrations, even oxygen will kill you. The vast amounts of CO2 that are being released from massive sinks (the ocean, forests, oil deposits) is leading to redeposition of high levels of carbon compounds in the atmosphere, not just carbon dioxide. To suggest that there is no impact from this activity is incredibly naive. To predict that the planet will melt as a result is perhaps alarmist. Regardless, I think it is VERY important that we pay attention.
By suggesting that the scientists doing emissions and climate research, and bodies like the IPCC who assess the results, are part of a mass conspiracy theory is not doing any one any favors. It undermines the enormous task of assessing this research and making predictions based on computer simulated MODELS, denigrates the humanity of these scientists and will do nothing to further the need for accountability. The reason the results are controversial is because they are predictions. No one knows with certainty what the result will be but can make a good guess.
Regardless, it doesn't seem like any one is planning to take the necessary steps to mitigate escalating levels of carbon anyway and most of our proposed "solutions" are garbage, e.g. cap and trade.
With this kind of public reaction to science we will find out the outcome from endless use of finite resources and our redistribution of them soon enough - not as a computer simulation but in the real world.
Cassandra22
Jan 25, 2010 at 1:07pm
And, here they come, lock step...
“It is hard to convey just how selective you have to be to dismiss the evidence for climate change. You must climb over a mountain of evidence to pick up a crumb: a crumb which then disintegrates in the palm of your hand. You must ignore an entire canon of science, the statements of the world's most eminent scientific institutions, and thousands of papers published in the foremost scientific journals.”
~ George Monbiot