Bronze-level articleClimategate

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m (See also)
m (See also)
Line 30: Line 30:
 
*[[Patrick Michaels]]
 
*[[Patrick Michaels]]
 
*[[Soon and Baliunas controversy]]
 
*[[Soon and Baliunas controversy]]
 +
*[[Yamal controversy]]
 
*[[Wegman Report]]
 
*[[Wegman Report]]
  

Revision as of 04:14, 3 April 2011

Not just a river in Egypt

Denialism

Icon denialism.svg
A dirty dozen gems

Climategate is the most common term that the media and blogosphere gave to to a controversy that followed the November 2009 release of thousands of illegally-obtained e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Global warming denialists immediately pounced on the story, claiming that much of the data supporting the existence of global warming were fabricated. The media quoted many of the e-mails[1] out of context.[2] (A big scientific project causes people to curse, disagree and sigh. Who knew?)

Contents

Trick or treat?

Much of the furor is over the scientists' use of the word "trick," such as when one of the scientists wrote: "I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline." While the denialists see this as some sort of conspiracy,[3] it is really a mathematical way of dealing with a problem (a mathematical "trick") and reflects scientists interacting with each other.[4] The denialists also call for the release of the data, despite the fact that 95% of them are already available.[5]

Content

RealClimate, the leading blog on climate change, describes the content of the e-mails:

More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.[6]

Reactions

From Science

In the light of the controversy, the American Meteorological Society reaffirmed its support for the existence of anthropogenic global warming.[7] The editors of Nature did not think that the hacking required a review of papers published in the journal: "It is Nature's policy to investigate such matters if there are substantive reasons for concern, but nothing we have seen so far in the e-mails qualifies."[8]

From the climate change denialists

In an editorial in the Telegraph, Christopher Booker, author of The Real Global Warming Disaster:[9] called climategate "the greatest scientific scandal of our age."[10] Predictably, Glenn Beck lambasted the e-mails.[11] One blogger quoted writer George Monbiot saying that some of the climate scientists should resign,[12] but failed to mention that he also said, "But do these revelations justify the sceptics’ claims that this is 'the final nail in the coffin' of global warming theory?(8,9) Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence. To bury manmade climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be revealed."[13] Sarah Palin wrote a long Facebook post urging Barack Obama to boycott the Copenhagen conference on global warming, because (ironically) "Policy should be based on sound science, not snake oil."[14]

From the intelligent design community

In a bizarre twist, Denyse O'Leary managed to try to link "climategate" to the "conspiracy" of Darwinism, writing "Our reason for watching this brief is rather the extent to which scientists may have collaborated to prevent a full and fair evaluation of the evidence. If they do it with climate change, they might also do it with Darwinism, cancer research, and any number of other areas.".[15] The IDosphere's conspiracy accusations make you wonder what they think of the Wedge Document.[16].

See also

Footnotes

  1. The original e-mails are supposedly here, although this is unconfirmed.
  2. For a clear example, see here.
  3. The blogger that broke the story specifically calls this quote "manipulation of evidence."
  4. A detailed explanation can be found in this youtube video.
  5. http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate
  6. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
  7. http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeclarify.html
  8. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html
  9. The full title is (take a deep breath)The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is the Obsession with "Climate Change" Turning Out to be the Most Costly Scientific Blunder in History?
  10. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html
  11. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROaLU8g8VA4
  12. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/23/monbiot-issues-an-unprecedented-apology/
  13. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/11/23/the-knights-carbonic/
  14. http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=188540473434
  15. http://www.uncommondescent.com/climate-change/climategate-money-laundering/
  16. http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2009/12/04/discovery-institute-climategate-crescendo/
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support