Climate Emails Stoke Debate

[Squee]

By KEITH JOHNSON

 

The scientific community is buzzing over thousands of emails and documents -- posted on the Internet last week after being hacked from a prominent climate-change research center -- that some say raise ethical questions about a group of scientists who contend humans are responsible for global warming.

 

The correspondence between dozens of climate-change researchers, including many in the U.S., illustrates bitter feelings among those who believe human activities cause global warming toward rivals who argue that the link between humans and climate change remains uncertain.

 

Some emails also refer to efforts by scientists who believe man is causing global warming to exclude contrary views from important scientific publications.

 

"This is horrible," said Pat Michaels, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute in Washington who is mentioned negatively in the emails. "This is what everyone feared. Over the years, it has become increasingly difficult for anyone who does not view global warming as an end-of-the-world issue to publish papers. This isn't questionable practice, this is unethical."

 

In all, more than 1,000 emails and more than 2,000 other documents were stolen Thursday from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University in the U.K. The identity of the hackers isn't certain, but the files were posted on a Russian file-sharing server late Thursday, and university officials confirmed over the weekend that their computer had been attacked and said the documents appeared to be genuine.

 

"The selective publication of some stolen emails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way," the university said.

 

Most climate scientists today argue that the earth's temperature is rising, and nearly all of those agree that human activity is likely to be a prime or at least significant cause. But a vocal minority dispute one or both of those views.

 

A partial review of the hacked material suggests there was an effort at East Anglia, which houses an important center of global climate research, to shut out dissenters and their points of view.

 

In the emails, which date to 1996, researchers in the U.S. and the U.K. repeatedly take issue with climate research at odds with their own findings. In some cases, they discuss ways to rebut what they call "disinformation" using new articles in scientific journals or popular Web sites.

 

The emails include discussions of apparent efforts to make sure that reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations group that monitors climate science, include their own views and exclude others. In addition, emails show that climate scientists declined to make their data available to scientists whose views they disagreed with.

 

The IPCC couldn't be reached for comment Sunday.

 

In one email, Benjamin Santer from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, Calif., wrote to the director of the climate-study center that he was "tempted to beat" up Mr. Michaels. Mr. Santer couldn't be reached for comment Sunday.

 

In another, Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center, suggested to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University that skeptics' research was unwelcome: We "will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" Neither man could be reached for comment Sunday.

 

The emails were published less than a month before the opening of a major climate-change summit in Copenhagen.

 

Representatives of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a large professional organization, expressed concern that the hacked emails would weaken global resolve to curb greenhouse-gas emissions. The association believes "that climate change is real, it is related to human activities, and the need to counteract its impacts is now urgent," said Ginger Pinholster, an association spokeswoman. She added that the association's journal, Science, evaluates papers solely on scientific merit.

 

John Christy, a scientist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville attacked in the emails for asking that an IPCC report include dissenting viewpoints, said, "It's disconcerting to realize that legislative actions this nation is preparing to take, and which will cost trillions of dollars, are based upon a view of climate that has not been completely scientifically tested."

 

Mojib Latif, a climate researcher at Germany's Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, said he found it hard to believe that climate scientists were trying to squelch dissent. Mr. Latif, who believes in man-made global warming but who has co-authored a paper ascribing current cooling to temporary natural trends, said, "I simply can't believe that there is a kind of mafia that is trying to inhibit critical papers from being published."

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html

 

Finally!

[karmakramer]

You know I wrote a paper in highschool about 4 years ago about the IPCC and how they did some pretty weird shit with the "reports" they released on climate change... I didn't actually believe that it went this far, because I mainly wrote the paper just to challenge myself and be devil's advocate instead of writing what everyone wrote which was the "al gore bullshit"... kind of funny how my paper could be now somewhat accurate.

[lumpenprol]

finally? I don't see how this will do any good, it will just give climate change naysayers an excuse to keep doing what they're doing. The fact is we have to change our behavior regardless of how much influence pollution is actually having.

[Guest analogue wings]

FUCK YES

 

these fuckwits trying to turn science into fundamentalist religion need to be stopped

[Guest Coalbucket PI]

I'm just on my way into the scientific community, I'll see if its buzzing

[Guest analogue wings]

The fact is we have to change our behavior regardless of how much influence pollution is actually having.

 

And that makes it OK to lie to people and tell them the apocalypse is coming?

[Squee]

finally? I don't see how this will do any good, it will just give climate change naysayers an excuse to keep doing what they're doing. The fact is we have to change our behavior regardless of how much influence pollution is actually having.

 

Of course, it's never wrong to prevent pollution but the way it has been promoted, or whatever you feel like calling it, for the last couple of years (read: Al Gore) is a disgrace. I mean, Al Gore buying eco-indulgences from himself? That's fantastic!

[lumpenprol]

[edit: reply to AW]

 

i didn't say that, of course it's a huge embarrassment, I detest PC-ism and groupthink in all their forms. But it reminds me of that Bradbury story "Toynbee convector(?)", where the guy pretends he invented a time machine just to convince humanity to head in the right direction. We really need a kick in the pants to do something about global pollution...not that this is the way to do it, but I'm not going to beat my breast about it. The main reason not to squelch alternative research, apart from the ethical one of course, is that it can end up backfiring as it did in this case...I also wonder how widespread this actually was, or if it is much ado about nothing. People in my industry talk shit about each other all the time in private, I'm curious how much of the bluster actually translated into really blocking valid research.

Edited November 23, 2009 by lumpenprol

[Guest analogue wings]

Oh yeah the New Zealand coverment is about to pass "carbon trading" or whatever the fuck they call it laws. It's so obvious they are just making the system absurdly complex so that it will be easy as fuck for the polluters' clever lawyers to game it.

 

The trading system is so convoluted and blatantly open to corruption that the Libertarian party actually suggested a TAX would be a better idea!

[Squee]

i didn't say that, of course it's a huge embarrassment, I detest PC-ism and groupthink in all their forms. But it reminds me of that Bradbury story "Toynbee convector(?)", where the guy pretends he invented a time machine just to convince humanity to head in the right direction.

 

Truth.

But they should have thought of other ways promoting this.

 

Actually, it would have been easier to just cram a pollution tax down our throats without tying lies to it.

[Guest analogue wings]

This is also the plot of Watchmen (the book anyway).

[Bubba69]

we're too late anyways, that icecap right there is breakin into CHUNKS!

[Guest analogue wings]

so it looks like a lot of that climate scare stuff might be BS

 

we're too late anyways, that icecap right there is breakin into CHUNKS!

 

[BCM]

awesome. I'm off to pour a barrel of paint thinners into my local river.

[Hoodie]

so it looks like a lot of that climate scare stuff might be BS

 

we're too late anyways, that icecap right there is breakin into CHUNKS!

 

 

they're just talking about a small group of scientists being douchebags. so i'd hardly say that "a lot" of climate research has been kicked to the curb.

 

i think this is a bit of an overreaction. maybe the scientists in the emails were just joking for the most part? i mean, one did say that he wanted to beat up a climate change denialist... that doesn't seem all too serious to me.

[Guest chunky]

Climate Change Causes Prostitution

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QD2WTK94c1U

 

I want to live in a clean country but I can't follow these climate change fanatics with their ridiculous claims and Orwellian propaganda.

[GORDO]

newsflash, scientists smug others who don't agree with their views.

 

yeah this is such a non issue, the mention of the cato institute there should hint you what this is really about.

[chenGOD]

You can't take those "leaked e-mails" seriously, as the "hacker group" decided to only release part of the information. Context is probably pretty important.

[Guest analogue wings]

i think this is a bit of an overreaction. maybe the scientists in the emails were just joking for the most part? i mean, one did say that he wanted to beat up a climate change denialist... that doesn't seem all too serious to me.

 

A skeptic is not a "denialist". Climate change "denialists" are fruit loops who live in Alaska and wear track suits on magazine covers. A skeptic is a scientist who might believe that climate change is highly likely, but is nevertheless uncomfortable with his colleagues telling the fib it is absolute proven fact. Because if they get busted telling that fib, then that is just going to start a backlash against science and reason that will play right into the hands of the crazy Alaskans.

 

Calling a skeptic a denier is like calling an atheist a Satanist. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are in utter opposition to your beliefs.

[awepittance]

while i believe climate change is a serious issue i think the way the mainstream debate about it has been framed is false. unfortunately most people are either on the side of 'global warming doesn't exsist, look at all that snow!' to 'carbon taxing is a great idea, lets hand over the power to the federal government who is basically controlled by corporations to stifle competing industries'

 

 

 

anybody here know about one of michael Crichton's last book? It was critically panned because it was a story about how both sides of the global warming debate are part of a secret conspiracy.

 

State of Fear is, like many of Crichton's works, a fictional work that uses science and speculation for the storyline. The debate over global warming serves as the backdrop for the book. Crichton supplies a personal afterword and two appendices that link the fictional part of the book with real examples of his thesis.

The main villains in the plot are environmentalists. Crichton does place blame on "industry" in both the plot line and the appendices. Various assertions appear in the book, for example:

The science that supports or does not support the theory behind global warming is so incomplete that no reasonable conclusions can be drawn on how to solve the "problem" (or if the "problem" even exists).

Elites in various fields use either real or artificial crises to maintain the existing social order, misusing the "science" behind global warming.

As a result of potential conflicts of interest, the scientists conducting research on topics related to global warming may subtly change their findings to bring them in line with their funding sources.

Crichton argues for removing politics from science and uses global warming and real-life historical examples in the appendices to make this argument. In a 2003 speech at the California Institute of Technology he expressed his concern about what he considered the "emerging crisis in the whole enterprise of science—namely the increasingly uneasy relationship between hard science and public policy."[6]

 

the things bolded i think are pretty genuine concerns that barely anybody talks about, msot of the time the 'conflict of interest' assertion is only leveled at skeptics of the mainstream climate change theories, people always say they work for oil companies. the level of faith that people have for the people who will be instituting these regulations is pretty astounding in comparison.

Edited November 23, 2009 by Awepittance

[Guest analogue wings]

Ask yourself when the US/UK govermnents ever did anything because it was "the right thing to do". Did they get rid of Saddam because he was terrorising his citizens? Fuck no. Somebody getting PAID.

 

They are just using the climate apocalypse hysteria to shunt through laws that benefit the fatcats just like they did with Terrorists and Weapons of Mass Destruction.

[GORDO]

which fatcats? the fatcats who benefit from this are the fatcats with stake on green related stuff.

 

there's is a lot more big money/bussiness with interest in not adressing the issue. i.e. big oil.

 

the thing is, the IPCC conclusions are pretty close to a scientific consensus. you know, like evolution.

[awepittance]

i think the 'fatcats' who make money directly off of green business is only a tip of the iceberg for the type of people who who will benefit monetarily or otherwise from having these regulations. cap and trade to me seems like a way for all the polluting corporations to league together and say 'we polluted the shit out of this planet since the industrial revolution, but that was ok because everyone was doing it, but since you're just starting to do this now we can't let you' to me it seems transparently a means to stifle rising competition.

analogue wings is right, when has a corporation ever gotten into big trouble for breaking the law or a regulation? usually they just get slapped a fine and to them it's cheaper just to pay the fines than it is to actually follow the regulations.

Edited November 23, 2009 by Awepittance

[Guest ezkerraldean]

i'll be watching this pretty closely. seen a few dodgy quotes from all that hacked shit, but how prolific really is it?

 

climate scientists do piss me off as a rule, though. except the ones in my department who are all pretty safe and have taught me polish swear words in the past.

[Hautlle]

While I agree that it is impossible to deny humans have polluted he shit out of the world, I'm still in the air about how much impact we have on the global climate. There have been many times in the history of the planet that it has been much warmer or much colder. To think that we are having a tremendous impact on the climate may be slightly egocentric. There are many more factors on the global climate and CO2 or other air "pollutants". The Earth was here long before humans and will be around long after... As far as the actual topic: doesn't this completely fly in the face of scientific method? Peer review is the critical step that keeps the scientific community on the level. If that disappears we will have just another source of unfounded "knowledge" being used to push collective agendas against us.

Edited November 24, 2009 by Hautlle