Climate change: shoot the messenger – not the message
Climate change science is reeling from a series of scandals. They're embarrassing, says Steve Connor, but don't alter the facts
It was supposed to have been a small side event at the Copenhagen climate conference but it quickly turned into an ugly slanging match that eventually had to be resolved by burly security guards escorting one of the protagonists from the room. But for Stephen Schneider, a veteran climatologist, it was yet more evidence of the deeply divisive nature of climate science.
Schneider, a professor at Stanford University in California, had gone to Copenhagen to publicise his latest book, Science as a Contact Sport, but his press conference was soon hijacked by a little-known film-maker and climate sceptic who pressed him persistently about the emails leaked from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit.
As the title of his book suggests, Schneider is not someone who shies away from confrontational situations. He explained at some length, and with some vigour, why he could not comment on stolen, redacted emails taken out of context – especially to someone with a track record of using his quotes out of context.
The heated exchange continued after the press conference was formally over and was only resolved with the intervention of UN security guards. A heavily edited clip can be seen on YouTube. The sceptic comes over as a heroic seeker of truth, while Schneider is portrayed as the tricky, evasive scientist relying on a team of hired heavies to shield him from difficult questions.
The confrontation is just one example of the new uncomfortable world in which climate change scientists and campaigners now find themselves working in.
After more than 20 years of battling to achieve a global consensus on man-made warming, in a matter of weeks the sceptics are once again on the ascendant. And the most galling part about it – it was the mistakes, hype and hubris of some of the movement's most celebrated champions that have been responsible.
It started when copies of more than 1,000 emails dating from between 1996 and 2009 were stolen from a back-up computer at the University of East Anglia sometime prior to November 2009. Although there is no evidence that any of them alter the fundamental science of climate change, they do appear to show that scientists, especially the beleaguered head of the unit, Professor Phil Jones, were prepared to conspire together to delete information rather than release it.
That was enough to provide invaluable ammunition for climate sceptics. They showed the lengths that some of the most renowned climate scientists were willing to go to prevent their data and email correspondence from getting into the hands of the sceptic community. Their unwillingness to open the books on their science have been a huge own-goal because they suggest some kind of cover-up and, even worse, a subversion of the hallowed scientific process of peer review.
Schneider, one of the first scientists to warn about the rise in man-made greenhouse gases, said that by far the most frequent questions he gets asked right now concern the stolen East Anglia emails, even though they do not alter the basic science of climate change. "Nothing scientifically has changed because of any of this. The only changes are political and perceptual," he said.
Professor Julia Sligo, chief scientist at the Met Office, said: "With all the furore over the past few weeks it's very easy for the public to lose sight of these basis facts. CO2 levels are 30 per cent higher than at any time over at least the last 600,000 years and the rate of rise is unprecedented. Yes, there is uncertainty in the observations. We accept that and we quantify that, but it does not alter the message. I believe the case for anthropogenic global warming is very compelling and I think it's good for us to remind ourselves of that in the face of all these attempts to suggest otherwise."
An independent inquiry led by Sir Muir Russell is investigating the emails to see if there is any evidence of scientific misconduct. His report is not expected to be published before spring. Yesterday, a parallel investigation by Pennsylvania State University found that one of its top scientists, Professor Michael Mann, who was involved in many of the email exchanges with Professor Jones, was not guilty of scientific misconduct.
In the meantime, scientists in Britain said that they feel unable to address public concerns raised by the emails because of the problem of not knowing the bigger picture that lies the correspondence.
"What you have to understand is the context of those emails and we won't know that until the review is published," Professor Sligo said. "Anything taken out of context can look very damaging, so it's not the right time to comment on individual emails when we don't know the history of the discussion or the context in which they were written."
But it is not only the East Anglian scientists that have had a blow to their reputation. Perhaps even more damaging for climate science has been the admission by the widely renowned Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Earlier this month, the august UN body was forced to admit that it got it wrong over a claim in one of its 2007 reports suggesting that the Himalayan glaciers may have melted away by 2035.
It emerged that the claim came from a non-peer reviewed report by the WWF (formerly the World Wildlife Fund), who took it from a magazine article. The scientist behind the magazine's claim has since said that his comment, quoted accurately, was "speculative".
Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, was told about the error last year but at that time dismissed suggestions that the claim was wrong, saying that the doubts were "voodoo science". The IPCC finally published a correction last month, but Pachauri has refused to apologise personally. John Sauven, the head of Greenpeace, yesterday questioned his judgement, saying he should have acted sooner.
The waters were muddied further at the weekend when it emerged that a report by the UN watchdog that global warming might wipe out 40 per cent of the Amazon rainforest had been based on a claim by green campaigners.
Sir John Houghton, a distinguished climate scientist who was lead editor of the first three IPCC reports, said that the body needs to do a lot more to improve its tarnished image. "There is a problem in public confidence and the IPCC and climate scientists really need to make sure their message it getting across in a more effective way," Sir John said.
"I don't think the climate scientists involved with the IPCC have done a good enough job of explaining what they have done. It's not just the public, it is scientists in fields other than climate research who wonder if there is any truth in what is being said," he said.
Or, as Kelvin MacKenzie, former editor of the The Sun, put it in his column read by millions: "I'm delighted to report that going up in smoke on the global warming bonfire are the careers of lying professors, deceitful glaciologists, rainforest racketeers, and our old friends the bandwagon politicians. Never felt happier – don't believe a word they say."
Climate change: The facts on the ground, and in the air
*Mountain glaciers
Most glaciers around the world are melting and there is a scientific consensus that many of these glaciers are probably melting faster now than in previous decades. However, some glaciers are expanding because of heavier snowfall at higher, colder altitudes, which may in itself be the result of warmer temperatures. The claim in the 2007 fourth assessment report of the IPCC suggesting that Himalayan glaciers would have melted by 2035 was an error of its working group 2, which dealt with "impacts". The section on Himalayan glaciers by the scientific report of working group 1 did not make the same mistake.
*Global temperature record
One of the oldest criticisms of the global temperature record, as monitored by thousands of weather stations around the world, is that it has not taken into account the effect of growing cities. A weather station situated in a city is going to experience the "heat-island effect" and will give higher readings than a comparable weather station a few miles away in the country. Climate scientists have repeatedly stated that they have taken into account the effect of growing urbanisation which may have influenced the recordings of some weather stations suffering urban encroachment.
*Sea level rise
Most of the observed rise in global sea levels in recent decades has been attributed to thermal
expansion of the warmer oceans – as water warms, it expands. But melting glaciers and ice sheets will also contribute to sea levels. The IPCC's 2007 report predicted that global average sea levels could rise by up to 59cm by 2100, but this estimate was widely criticised by some scientists as too conservative. The IPCC scientists deliberately omitted predictions based on melting ice sheets because of uncertainties in the science. Experts have since suggested that sea level rise could be twice as much as previously thought.
*Amazon forest
A number of studies have investigated what happens to tropical forests in a warmer world. One of the greatest fears is that as temperatures rise, so does the risk that something catastrophic may happen to the Amazon. The IPCC suggested that in a warmer world, 40 per cent of the rainforest of the Amazon could disappear. But it cited a report by green activists rather than the original study published in a peer-reviewed journal. However, the IPCC said it is had valid reasons for not changing the text of the report.
*Extreme weather
Climate modellers have predicted that there could be more "extreme events", such as storms and droughts, as a result of rising global temperatures. In a warmer world there could be more frequent or intense hurricanes, but there is still a great deal of scientific uncertainty. The IPCC has been criticised for incorrectly linking global warming with the severity and frequency of costly floods and hurricanes. However, the IPCC dismissed the criticism, saying that its entire report should not be judged on just one section. The IPCC said it clearly stated that one study detected an increase in economic losses due to extreme events but that other studies had not detected such a trend.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Next Article In Climate Change
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
http://www.greenexplorer.ovi.com/getins
To me this pack mentality reeks of desperation.
That's right cranelake,t is ferocious, and unprecedented as you say, and open to snide comments which abound in all the forums whenever this vital subject comes up. Why is this, why is it so vicious ?
I am trying to keep an open mind, though common sense tells me that the activities of billions of people must be having Some effect on this planet and it's climate surely, and automatically for the good ?
Ah well, back to my tree...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttZqof7d
Another Bully Boy Security Guard with illusory authority... nice!
'Your so called "deniers", which include many reputable scientists, do not necessarily dispute the measurable 'facts', but have provided alternative, and until now' PROVED, 'possible causes to the observed changes.
When, in fact, no such proof of different causes has been shown. Indeed, where is the independent, peer-reviewed research from the deniers? It doesn't really exist does it except in the writings of people that are not climateologists, like: Fred Singer (works for the US Oil Industry), Ian Plimer (Geologist consultant to Australian Coal), Benny Pieser (Sports Science / Anthropology).
And when you make accusations about making 'powerful people more wealthy' try to have some sense of perspective. The big money riding on public perceptions of climate change is not the personal fortune of Al Gore or the professor-level salary of Phil Jones but the billions in shares and infrastructure that are involved in fossil-fuel industries worldwide.
I couldn't agree more that we should 'err on the side of caution'. Until the sceptics can prove that global warming isn't happening and that industrialisation and human population growth and the consequent destruction of the ecosystem isn't implicated, then we should stick with the plan to move to a low-carbon economy asap/.
Surely erring on the side of caution means taking steps to reduce carbon emissions sooner rather than later. And where is the safety issue in reducing unnecessary energy consumption and wastage and increasing the amount generated from sources that don't produce carbon? (OK I accept there's an issue for debate about the risks from nuclear power generation).
That's got it about right. Schneider is a long time alarmist, but prior to 1975 was pushing global cooling.
"Experts have since suggested that sea level rise could be twice as much as previously thought." One scientist from Potsdam, Stefan Rahmstorf, scaremonger and member of the hockey team at Real Climate, is the one pushing this. His modelling claims are the result of staistical fiddling and have even been challenged by the Met Office. There is no acceleration of sea level rise over what has been happening for thousands of years.
This classic, "experts have suggested" or Scientists say", is the sloppy, lazy way that the media report these claims. They do not do a quick check around the subject to see who is saying what and what their credibility is.
Climate models cannot "predict" anything. They can only offer projections from the data fed into them and start from theoretical baselines derived from so-called expert opinion. Climate models are vast accumulations of previous model runs and are un-auditable.
2. Pachaurigate
3. Glaciergate
4. Disastergate
6. SeaLevelgate
7. Amazongate
8. Citationgate
9. Dutchgate
etc, etc,
What we have learnt since the IPCC AR4, the facts, are that;
a. global warming is not unprecedented (the broken hockeytstick),
b. nor is it accelerating (no statistical warming for the past 15 years),
c. nor is the impact immediate (Glaciergate),
d. nor catastrophic (Amazongate, Disastergate, SeaLevelgate, Dutchgate),
e. that the science has been falsified (Climategate, Glaciergate, Disastergate, Dutchgate, Citationgate, the broken hockeystick),
f. and exaggerated (Amazongate, SeaLevelgate, etc),
g. and that people in high office and organisations who have a high public profile are simply profiteering and benefitting from climate alarmism (Pachaurigate, Al Gore, NASA, NOAA, CRU-UEA, WWF, Greenpeace, etc.)
h. environmental journalism is an oxymoron.
i. and finally, that Global Warming is a scam that the public have finally seen through.
http://www.plantsneedco2.org/default.as
1. CRU brazenly manipulating data and treating FOIA with contempt.
2. Pachauri treating scientific processes with contempt.
3. Gore preaching doomsday to make money.
4. The EU preaching doomsday to raise taxes.
5. Modellers being trusted whilst experimental scientists are ignored.
That's a large set of indictments which won't be turned around soon.
The next decade is for rigorous SCIENCE to answer the questions.
It is a decade for politicians to SHUT UP unless they speak with scientific rigour about the matter.
And it is a decade for application of real economics and politics to climate issues, which are decided DEMOCRATICALLY.
Goodbye Mr Brown and NuLabour Stasi-states. Goodbye IPCC religion. Goodbye Al Gore.
Hello engaging politicians. Hello confederation of national climate monitoring bodies. Hello US politicians who don't lie about climate.
The few mistakes made by climatologists are peccadillos not egregious errors as some would make out. It took alot to make some ignorant people accept that a moving clock runs slow and it will take alot for some to accept AGW. But by then it could be too late.
so we can get away from all the glib 'one liners' !
You will see from this site that the information is being constantly updated, for them
and for all of us - the science is NEVER settled.
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/G
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/G
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/G
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/D
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/G
jazznick:
Well said. This subject is far too vital for mere point scoring, and attempts at wit ( "spawned" notice, not written)
The science is weak on both sides of the argument, but at least the sceptics know this and are trying to advance scientific knowledge.
If Steve Connor wants to make a contribution perhaps he could use the pages of the Independent to explain the mysterious "back radiation" that is supposed to warm the surface of the earth. The reason for warmer nights when it is cloudy is said to be due to "back-radiation" from clouds. The clouds are at a lower temperature than the earth's surface and heat does not travel from a cold place to a warmer place - this is basic thermodynamic - which everybody but the "believers" seem to know. The reason it is warmer on a cloudy night is that the clouds limit the heat loss by convection - again basic thermodynamics.
I have always believed that scepticism is a useful tool in the search for scientific truth. If a hypothesis can't withstand criticism, then it is not a sustainable one. If it is necessary to hide or delete data to support a theory, that is fraud not science. However, I am called a Flat Earther by the highest in our Government because, like many intelligent people, I have some doubts about what are, quite frankly, alarmist reports which turn out to have no basis. The supposed-called 'consensus' science obviously isn't and doesn't include all scientists. Below are some with doubts...
Anthony Watts (Meteorologist) see what he says here
Richard Lindzen (Professor of Meteorology MIT) presents sides which show his doubts
Stephen McIntyre ( mathematical economics MIT) reveals the hide the decline trick
Joseph D'Aleo (Meteorologist) shows surface temp data is unreliable
Ross McKitrick (Professor of Economics, former IPCC reviewer) reveals his doubts
Roy Spencer (Ph.D Climatology, NASA) also has doubts
John L Daly (MBA, President of Executive Education) a new low in climate science
Sallie Baliunas (Astrophysicist) says climate change is natural
Phillip Stott (Professor Emeritus of Biogeography) also has doubts
But their points are never directly answered and we see from the emails leaked from the University of East Anglia the mindset that explains why.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/image
If you take the trouble to read all the links above and still think the science is 'settled' then there is no hope for us. If not, lets agree to return to the scientific method and get all data and the computer programs which process them in the public domain. Agreed?
Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.
*Mountain glaciers.
There is no proof that most glaciers are retreating. No survey has been done to count how many are expanding and how many are retreating. The use of the word �probably�, indicates speculation, not fact.. There is some evidence that glaciers that have been studied over a long period of time are melting at the same rate as they always have, some have speeded up, and some are growing. There is no collated evidence to prove a trend.
*Global temperature record.
This is the one thing that is most in dispute. There are several problems with it. As you say, the urban heat island effect is accounted for by climate scientists, but the claim of sceptics is that the adjustment is too small. This is backed up by a survey of about 75% of the USA ground stations, with supporting photographs, that found that 89% of them were badly sited in positions where the UHI effect would be far greater than the allowance made. Also Russian, Chinese, and New Zealand scientists are disputing the adjustments made to their raw data. For instance, the New Zealand raw data shows no temperature change over 100 years, but the IPCC adjusted data shows considerable warming. In the ground station record, NOAA and GISS have cut the number of readings used from 6000 in 1989 to 1500. Recent investigation seems to show they have eliminated mostly stations in rural and high altitude settings, which would automatically give a warming bias. The ground station record shows continuous warming this century, whereas the satellite record, unaffected by UHI, shows a small cooling. That seems to indicate that concerns about the ground station record are justified.
*Sea level rise
There has been no rise at all for the last three years. Sea level has been rising since the end of the Little Ice Age. The rate of rise has not accelerated, but remains at the same average. Dr. Morner, the worlds foremost sea level expert states that there is no change, and complains that of more than 20 papers submitted to the IPCC, not one of the authors was an acknowledged sea level expert.
*Amazon forest
The work quoted by the IPCC was in fact about the effects of logging on the forests, and nothing to do with climate change. It is not acceptable for the IPCC to admit this mistake, and then state it had no valid reason to change the text. They must produce peer reviewed papers to back that up. Speculation is not in their remit.
*Extreme weather
The record of hurricanes and tornados actually shows a small decline in numbers and ferocity over the last 100 years. Many other events such as flooding, and mudslides, are the result of local deforestation, and tectonic movement (Pakistan is sinking), and are not related to climate.
I would not like to disparage Stephen Schneider, who I think is one of the few honest scientists working on climate change, but the problem seems to be that he is working with data that has been doctored before he gets it.
Sceptics now claim there are at least 12 sections in the IPCC based on information from climate activist publications. Their original remit was that only peer reviewed science can be used in their reports. One has to ask why they have deviated from that.
A 'shrieking denier'. :o)
This Brand New Video Blows a Huge Gaping Hole in Obama's Cap and Tax Scheme: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVm5-6H_
justagreenie. : We are now in an inter-glacial period and can expect ice to melt and glaciers to retreat. Evidence of ice melting is not therefore evidence of man-made climate change. This has happened many times before in the ice age cycle. According to the IPCC's own Artic Impact Assessment report (2005) the previous inter-glacial period (the Eemian) was warmer than it is now. In Section 2.7.3.1 it states "...during the Eemian the winter sea-ice limit in Bering Strait was at least 800 km farther north than today, and that during some summers the Arctic Ocean may have been icefree. The northern treeline was more than 600 km farther north"
In fact temperatures were higher than now just 7,500 years ago. In section 2.7.4.2. it states ".. the mean July temperature along the northern coastline of Russia may have been 2.5 to 7.0 �C warmer than present....climatic conditions in the early Holocene were significantly warmer there than today... Glaciers had retreated past present-day termini in some areas by 7.5 ky BP�..Marine mammals and boreal molluscs were present far north of their present-day range by 7.5 to 6.5 ky BP, as were many species of plants between 9.2 and 6.7 ky BP ....Caribou were able to survive in the northernmost valleys of Ellesmere Island and Peary Land by 8.5 ky BP or earlier. Such evidence indicates very warm conditions early in the Holocene [8000 years ago]"
All this previous warming occurred long before the suggestion of any human influence on climate.
I ate a biscuit last week, and now there more biscuits than ever on the shelf.
More obfuscation.
Peace & love
This sort of risible tokenism - typical of New Labour - merely confirms that there's no real threat.
However, I advise all those who believe this to be the case to take an interest in Ocean Acidification.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen
'...they were sick of defending themselves from constant, badly informed nitpicks...'
Well tried, unexpectedtiger. Surprised in a way that you were even prepared to enter into a WWF (thats the eedjit wrestlers, not the conservation body) - style thread bout with joker jazzwhistle, soft-cop colinhru and hard-cop 'originaleskimo' (purleeze).
No surprise that there should be an attempt to rubbish peer review - after all it recognises a democratic scientific community mere threaders are excluded from on the grounds that they're propagandists, not scientists. Peer review among those qualified to do so is actually far too democratic a process for the likes of thread gamer 'originaleskimo' to accept.
Nowadays, Wikipedia has teams of editors and arbitrators because the days of the libertarian well of mutual respect has long gone. Castes are developing on the net in a reaction to the newly monetised web because of the likes of 'jazzwhistle', who really does barrage, not discussion. His 'peer' is, ultimately, a barking dog.
Post-investigation, Jones should join Houghton in figuring out how their MO needs to change given that data is liable to hacking and selective, libellous dissemination. For scientists to be able to operate as scientists this has to be addressed and nobody is now in a better position to speak of the effects of intrusion and theft than Jones.
Members of a 'democratic scientific community' do not attempt to marginalize and silence dissenting scientific opinions, or exercise undue influence on peer-review panels and the editorial boards of journals in order to block publication of research that conflicts with their own and blacklist its authors. This is, however, what the CRU stands accused of. So much for their 'democratic' principles, eh?
"mere threaders are excluded from on the grounds that they're propagandists, not scientists."
This 'mere threader' is a qualified scientist, and would thank you not to lecture him on the scientific method or the peer-review process, which he probably understands far better than you.
And are you a qualified scientist, gulliver055 - or just another 'propagandist' yourself?
Houghton has begun the necessary work. Not for him a singular, Chilcot-style narrative. Rather the certainty of the extant science and prediction rather than prophecy.
The anti-peer review likes of jazzwhistle and 'originaleskimo' (purleeze) whose real peers are, ultimately, barking dogs, would obviously attack the professional democracy of scientific peer review. It would probably irritate them that wikipedia now has thousands of editors and arbiters. Not that their motives derive from some libertarian San Francisco well. They are very much post-Gates, akin to the acts of the WWF - that's the wrestler eedjits, not the conservation body - so we get the thread gang, soft-cop colinhru, hard nutter-cop originaleskimo, and joker jazzwhistle, going to work on 'unexpectedtiger' who I'm surprised was up for the laughable bout.
'...they were sick of defending themselves from constant, badly informed nitpicks ...'
Good effort, unexpectedtiger, and totally with you on what you said, but really what you were attempting to do was a gameworld version of talking down an assault in an unlit alley.
Threads are not for science.
For further climate change announcements/predictions see below:
Expect even more climate change particularly around Spring, Summer, Autumn & Winter.
Any two consecutive days of increased temperature & a Global Warming will be issued with Gore Inc stocks expected to rise.
On reading this data please carefully heat until golden brown before bursting into flames, & delete any other changes to the climate that are less than useful to the cause.
All applications under the Freedom of Information Act are to be lost in the Hymalayas under any adjacent glacier whose shelf life excedes 2035 (thus anywhere should do).
Sponsored by New Clear Vision, working industrially hard on behalf of its supporters & shareholders.