Monday, December 7, 2009
CNN Runs Report on ClimateGate, But Only Includes Guests Who Dispute ClimateGate
After Snow’s report aired during the 6:00 p.m. hour, Howard Gould of Equator International opined that “I don’t see any importance” in the emails, and later asserted: “I think people are making a big deal out of nothing. I think it’s the climate debunkers that are out there, it’s their last ray of hope, and they’re trying to cling on to something. But it’s really, you know, I think it’s a bit of a joke.”
After Snow’s report aired during the 7:00 p.m. hour, CNN international correspondent Phil Black brought up the timing of the email release and referred to the “broad consensus that the warming of the climate system is unequivocal.” Black:
Don, many climate scientists believe those e-mails were deliberately hacked and leaked to try and destabilize the negotiations here. And they say those e-mails do nothing to discredit the work of thousands of climate scientists around the world…Some climate change skeptics are also traveling to this city to try and make their case. But they shouldn’t expect a friendly reception because this conference is based on the scientific theory accepted by a broad consensus that the warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
On the bright side, before presenting the views of those who dispute ClimateGate, Snow’s report informed viewers of the investigation into whether climate data at the University of East Anglia was manipulated, and that “Phil Jones, the head of the university’s climate research unit, has stepped down temporarily.” Snow:
This U.N. probe is in addition to an investigation under way at the University of East Anglia which says it’s looking to see if there’s any evidence that scientific data was manipulated or suppressed. Phil Jones, the head of the university’s climate research unit, has stepped down temporarily. Those who questioned the effects of human activity on climate change have seized on the e-mails, accusing scientists of conspiring to hide evidence and trying to destroy data. Among them, Republican Senator James Inhofe, who’s called global warming a hoax.
Snow included only one soundbite of a global warming skeptic — Republican Congressman John Shadegg of Arizona — but she used soundbites of two scientists who dispute the significance of the ClimateGate scandal.
Below are transcripts of relevant portions of the 6:00 p.m. hour and the 7:00 p.m. hour of CNN NewsRoom from Sunday, December 6:
#From the 6:00 p.m. hour of CNN Newsroom:
DON LEMON: Well, it’s an issue that is bringing more than 100 world leaders and 15,000 people to Denmark for a two-week summit starting tomorrow. It is global warming. There’s wide agreement in many quarters on the issue, but it remains fiercely controversial in others. Why does it matter? Well, for starters, scientists say a warmer Earth has dangerous consequences – storms, droughts and rising sea levels. While they support cuts in greenhouse gases to reduce and even reverse the impact of global warming. But critics say that’s foolish. Global warming – if it is happening – they say, is being exaggerated for political purposes. It’s this sometimes bitter debate that awaits President Obama when he heads to Copenhagen for the U.N. Climate Summit on December 18th.
Well, the talks in Copenhagen open with a cloud of controversy hovering over the conference. It may be called “ClimateGate”– look for that term to be used a lot – a series of stolen e-mails that may cast some doubt on global warming research. Our Mary Snow has a report.
MARY SNOW: Two weeks after computers were hacked at the UK’s University of East Anglia, and e-mails between climate scientists were posted on the Internet, the head of the U.N.’s climate science body told BBC Radio he wants an investigation.
AUDIO OF RAJENDRA PACHAURI, IPCC CHAIRMAN: We are certainly going to go into the whole lot, and then, as I said, we’ll take a position on it. So we certainly don’t want to brush anything under the carpet. We don’t want to sweep it under the carpet. This is a serious issue, and we certainly will look into it in detail.
SNOW: This U.N. probe is in addition to an investigation under way at the University of East Anglia which says it’s looking to see if there’s any evidence that scientific data was manipulated or suppressed. Phil Jones, the head of the university’s climate research unit, has stepped down temporarily. Those who questioned the effects of human activity on climate change have seized on the e-mails, accusing scientists of conspiring to hide evidence and trying to destroy data. Among them, Republican Senator James Inhofe, who’s called global warming a hoax. This week he called for hearings. No decisions yet. And the e-mails were raised at a House hearing this week.
REP. JOHN SHADEGG (R-AZ): Anyone who thinks that those e-mails are insignificant, that they don’t damage the credibility of the entire movement, is naive.
SNOW: But at that hearing, a top government scientist said the e- mails do nothing to change the science.
JANE LUBCHENCO, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION: E-mails really do nothing to undermine the very strong scientific consensus and the independent scientific analyses of thousands of scientists around the world that tell us that the earth is warming and that the warming is largely a result of human activity.
GAVIN SCHMIDT, NASA GODDARD INSTITUTE FOR SPACE STUDIES: These are the temperature records from the U.S.
SNOW: Gavin Schmidt is a leading climate scientist with NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. In the weeks since the e-mails were hacked and questions arose, he’s been putting large volumes of data links on the Web site RealClimate.org that demonstrates a consistent trajectory of a potentially dangerously warming climate.
SCHMIDT: So what we’ve done is we just said, you know, look, you’re not aware of that data. But here is all the data that’s already existing.
SNOW: His name appeared on those e-mails, and he says he has nothing to hide.
SCHMIDT: There’s nothing in these e-mails that’s problematic, you know. Most of the stuff that has been talked about has been taken completely out of context, and there’s a lot of nonsense that’s being spoken.
SNOW: Debate over these e-mails comes as world leaders head to Copenhagen next week for the U.N. Climate Change Conference. As to what impact these might have? The UK’s Energy and Climate Change Secretary is quoted by the BBC as saying the idea that they could derail the conference is in his words, nonsense. Mary Snow, CNN, New York.
LEMON: All right, Mary, so let’s talk about all of this now with Howard Gould. He is the president of Equator Environmental, and he joins us from Stanford, Connecticut. Good to see you, Howard. So ClimateGate, ClimateGate, ClimateGate, what’s the importance, if any, of these e-mails?
HOWARD GOULD, EQUATOR ENVIRONMENTAL: I mean, I don’t see any importance. The fact is that there’s going to be an investigation that’s ongoing and going to looking to exactly what happens. I mean, I do think that a lot of this stuff was taken out of context. But I also think that let’s just take all of it out of the picture, and you still look at all the other scientific institutions that are out there, and they all say the same thing. So it’s, you know, I think people are making a big deal out of nothing. I think it’s the climate debunkers that are out there, it’s their last ray of hope, and they’re trying to cling on to something. But it’s really, you know, I think it’s a bit of a joke.
LEMON: So you don’t think it’s suppression at all, as they claim, of any evidence about global warming?
GOULD: Oh, I mean, I’m not, I’m not saying that maybe certain scientists out there in their particular data sets might have done something at that university. I mean, that may well have occurred. I can’t speak to that. But I, you know, my thought is that, okay, fine, let’s just take all of that data that’s come out of that university off the table, and look, I mean, you just heard yourself from the people over at NASA that look, look at the data. It’s, you know, it says that climate change is occurring, and the globe is warming, and it is probably anthropogenic, or manmade.
#From the 7:00 p.m. hour of CNN NewsRoom, after Snow’s report re-aired:
DON LEMON: And CNN has learned that officials at this week’s climate conference in Copenhagen will not shy away from the controversy over the leaked e-mails. Let’s go now to CNN’s Phil Black who is in Copenhagen. Phil?
PHIL BLACK: Don, here in Copenhagen, just hours before the Climate Change Conference opens, United Nations officials admit that ClimateGate is already being discussed by delegates here. The U.N.’s climate change chief Yvo de Boer, says the issue of those e-mails from the University of East Anglia will be addressed directly in speeches during the opening ceremony. I asked Yvo de Boer what he makes of the allegations. And he said he believes there is a positive side to this scandal.
YVO DE BOER, UNFCCC EXECUTIVE SECRETARY: I actually think it’s very good that what’s, what has happened is being critically addressed in the media because this process has to be based on solid science. And if the quality and the integrity of the science is being called into question, then that needs to be examined.
BLACK: Don, many climate scientists believe those e-mails were deliberately hacked and leaked to try and destabilize the negotiations here. And they say those e-mails do nothing to discredit the work of thousands of climate scientists around the world, independent scientists whose work draws similar conclusions. Some climate change skeptics are also traveling to this city to try and make their case. But they shouldn’t expect a friendly reception because this conference is based on the scientific theory accepted by a broad consensus that the warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
—Brad Wilmouth is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
19 Responses to “Climategate”
Leave a Reply
Name (required)
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Website
As the Climategate scandal continues to unfold, it appears the final chapter is being written in the great anthropogenic global warming swindle pushed so vigorously and for so long by the world’s leading climate change hoax-perpetrator, former Vice President Al Gore. The scandal is a case of “scientists cooking the books, changing the research, changing the numbers, changing the actual temperatures, discrediting people in e-mails, saying how do we discredit them, how do we make them go away, et cetera, et cetera,” said Glenn Beck.
The so-called scientific consensus that Gore and a generation of true believers promoted has been gradually disintegrating for years but news that the key scientists involved in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have been falsifying data has accelerated the process. Yet some in the media, even some of those journalists supposedly on the right, still don’t get it and continue to cling to their faith in the anthropogenic global warming religion. Shame on them.
The high water mark for Gore’s fantasy must have been 2007 when he and the now-disgraced IPCC were jointly awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for their commitment to saving the human race from itself. The award came on the heels of Gore’s surprise hit of a movie, An Inconvenient Truth.
“For years, anyone who criticized global warming was accused of being bought and paid for by the polluting industry and whatnot, while these enlightened, objective scientists, you know, were beyond reproach,” author Jonah Goldberg said on Glenn Beck’s TV show.
No wonder Al Gore’s been terrified of publicly debating the science of global warming and climate change. He’s got billions of dollars in potential personal worth on the line. Surely he knew long ago that the science wasn’t there.
/f?id=667a6c7987181f4a4a6f5100” border=”0” alt=”barack obama saudi arabia king abdullah” />For those who had hoped that the scandal surrounding leaked emails from climate scientists would be a topic unworthy of discussion at the talks in Copenhagen, the opening day of the summit proved that would not be the case.It was a fiasco of mistrust and argument.
And the world’s #1 oil nation was only too happy to see the mess.
AFP: “The level of trust is definitely shaken, especially now that we are about to conclude an agreement that … is going to mean sacrifices for our economies,” said Mohammed al-Sabban, the kingdom’s top climate negotiator, told delegates at the opening of December 7-18 UN talks.
Al-Sabban called for an “independent” international investigation, but said that the UN climate science body was unqualified to carry it out.
Continue reading here.
Today, the United Nations Climate Change Conference called COP 15 begins in Copenhagen, Denmark. Over the next 12 days, delegates gathered from around the world will discuss the current state of Earth’s climate. They are also charged with developing an agreement that improves upon and replaces the Kyoto Protocol — the climate treaty ratified by many of the world’s countries which is due to expire in 2012. The main conference portal can be found here, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark has provided a way for all of us to view summaries of the proceedings via webcast here.
In the weeks leading up to the conference, an electronic break-in at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia and the subsequent posting of emails contained in the servers ignited a contentious debate — dubbed Climategate – between those skeptical of the human role in climate change and mainstream climatologists. Some have charged that the emails show a concerted effort to withhold or manipulate data unsupportive of global warming. It is unknown what effect, if any, the scandal resulting from the email revelations will have on the outcome of the conference. The substance of the debate can be found here.
MP shows strong support for games News | Eurogamer
Read our MP shows strong support for games News for PC, Xbox 360, and PlayStation 3.
Child’s Play raises over $1 million for children’s charities // News
Child’s Play, the community-based games industry charity founded by Penny Arcade comic creators Jerry Holkins and Mike Kr…
Paywall watch: The news you’re willing to pay for
In his article for The Register, Murdoch: Google is mortal and together we can kill it, Andrew Orlowski argues that Google indexes too much junk, and News International cutting off its news steams would remove quality content. …
December 7th, 2009 at 9:52 am
A less sanguine view of the implications of Warmergate is found here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6738111/Climategate-reveals-the-most-influential-tree-in-the-world.html
I particularly like the link made between Hans Christien Anderson’s ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes’ and the Copenhagen Summit!
December 7th, 2009 at 10:17 am
When the management of a newspaper feels it needs use a chain letter as editorial content, I feel it time to part company. I pay for thoughtful prose, not trite verbage.
I have bought my last copy of the Irish Times.
December 7th, 2009 at 10:42 am
In any normal scientific debate, the failure of a hypothesis to be confirmed by experimental data would lead to major questions. The failure of the models of the Global Warming lobby to accurately predict climate developments in the last five years rather calls into question the power of those models to predict climate developments over the next century.
But this scientific debate is being politically run. Faith in carbon-caused global warming trumps clear signs that key scientific evidence has been tampered with. Breathless efforts to declare that “the global warming debate is over” are illustrative of a neediness to lock in on certain conclusions rather than an openess to follow the data wherever it may lead.
NB I don’t dispute signs of global warming over the last century. I simply question whether carbon is the cause and whether the whole phenomenon is something humans need to reverse or just adapt to.
December 7th, 2009 at 10:49 am
@Cormac
Climate models are designed to conditionally forecast secular trends in climate, not for medium-term (5 yr) forecasts.
Decadal variability is substantial, as shown by data and models alike. In order to accurately predict the weather for five years (as you seem to demand), one would need to measure the ocean temperature at the surface and at depth. Such an observation system does not exist, so you cannot blame the models for failing this test.
Decadal variability is separated from long-term trends, so your demand is irrelevant.
December 7th, 2009 at 11:50 am
@richard,
what did you expect from IT? If environmental writers McDonald, Gibbons etc are not paid up members of the Green Party, they certainly act like it. Theirs is activism/evaneglism, not journalism.
Here is a skeptical piece about the the 1000y temperature reconstruction known as the hockey stock.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6738111/Climategate-reveals-the-most-influential-tree-in-the-world.html
The relative size of anthropogenic co2 vs natural climate forcings is the central issue. The “hockey stick” was critical in convincing many skeptical people of a unique, urgent threat from anthropogenic co2.
No serious person can claim that co2, ch4 etc are not greenhouse gases. Or that atmospheric, oceanic and terrestrial co2/carbon do not increased due to fossil fuel burning etc. The question is whether radiative forcing from atmospheric co2 is really swamping natural variability.
In the wake of “climategate”, the honest answer is that this question is re-opened. Whatever the IT says, the question will only be settled by transparent observations and analysis.
December 7th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
@ richard
The Irish Times is a disaster on the climate change question, despite your own efforts to put the UAE “Climategate” affair into perspective. Gibbons and McDonald are doing untold damage to the cause they would doubtless claim to represent.
What really annoyed me a couple of weeks ago was when Gibbons asserted that “the sceintific debate was over”. I penned Madam a 2-liner to the effect that the scientific debate is never over, but not for the first time she protected her columnist from even moderate criticism.
December 7th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
John Gibbons’ blog is fascinating: http://www.thinkorswim.ie/
December 7th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
@ Richard
Do you really believe that it is “irrelevant” that climate change models are unable to predict climate 5 years hence but we are supposed to divert huge resources to avoid a change in climate the same models predict for 100 years hence? Does that not show that these models’ predictive power may be rather weak?
The fact that the lull in global warming this decade was not predicted by any of the immensely complex computer models which embody the conventional wisdom is clear evidence that the science is far from settled.
But this is largely a political debate rather than a scientific one. More’s the pity.
December 7th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
@Cormac
I do not do belief.
Predicting climate at the decadal scale is no proof of (lack of) skill at the centennial scale and vice versa. These are different problems. The physics are the same, but starting values are different.
The Hamburg climate model, by the way, did predict the lack of warming of recent years, and says it’ll be coolish until 2020 or so.
December 7th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
@bg
The Irish Times does not list the political affiliations of its contributors. The Green Party does not publish a list of its members. Frank McDonald does not have his own website. John Gibbons does, but it is quiet about political membership.
Before anybody start talking about kettles and pots: I’m not a member of anything.
December 7th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Christopher Booker is already notorious for his misinformation about climate change - so his articles in the Daily Telegraph would be the last place you should look for unbiased opinion. See
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/christopher_bookers_misinforma.php
A look at the following climate blogs should give a balanced view - see Tim Lambert’s blog (above) and http://www.realclimate.org/
Incidentally, I have not seen the justification for Richard Tol’s remark in today’s IT that “the climate change graph from 1850 to the present cannot be reproduced” and I wonder if he could supply it?
The so-called “Climategate” has been grossly exaggerated. In particular the science/ politics dichotomy is quite inane - if the science does not inform the politics, then what is the point of publicly funded science in the first place?
The CRU hubbub no more discredits global warming then debunking Piltdown Man discredited the fact of evolution.
December 7th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
@Toby
CRU does not understand their algorithms and deleted data, so they cannot redo let alone reproduce their work.
December 7th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
@toby
“A look at the following climate blogs should give a balanced view - see Tim Lambert’s blog (above) and http://www.realclimate.org/”
Thanks Toby, glad to see you can engage in the debate with a sense of humour!
December 7th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Richard says:
“CRU does not understand their algorithms and deleted data, so they cannot redo let alone reproduce their work.”
My understanding is that raw data was not deleted & can be retrieved from its source or other institutions. “Not understanding the algorithms” must come from the famous “Harry”, who seems to have been a poor programmer struggling to deal with many intractable data sets. I have not seen anywhere in the few snippets of e-mail posted any admission that the scientists do not “understand the algorithms”.
In any event, other institutions (such as NASA) have charted temperature data from other sources e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_since_1880
This originated with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Basically, I found Richard’s article a much weaker defence of climate science than is warranted. He might have pointed out that only a handful of emails have been bruited about, even though the number hacked runs into thousands.
For more forthright defences, see http://www.desmogblog.com/ and http://www.grist.org/article/nasas-james-hansen-on-hacked-emails/
December 7th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Paddy Orwell (clearly no relation) said:
“Thanks Toby, glad to see you can engage in the debate with a sense of humour!”
Well, thank you, Paddy, and if that’s your best shot, then I’m still laughing!
December 7th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
@Gekko
Sob. Not even on a Wednesday?
( off to weep into my pillow now)
December 7th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
It’s ignorant to declare a debate on the issue over.
The case may not be as conclusive as the majority of scientists claim but the focus on renewables and reduction in pollution, will be a positive development in places like China and India.
Action on deforestation in Indonesia will also be positive.
Most summers, the burning peatlands in Sumarta, results in smog over the Malaysian capital of Kuala Lumpur.
December 7th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
@Toby
No data has been deleted. However, the data are no longer on the CRU servers. That means that they cannot reproduce their work without first reassembling the raw database. They need to either reconstruct the data exactly as it was (which is impossible) or rewrite the data input procedures (which they do not understand).
December 7th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
@Richard, I think you have highlighted the fact that an excessive burden is being placed on science to justify a target for a maximum increase in global temperature that might facilitate universal agreement on a politically palatable package of measures to achieve this target. Once a target is agreed, the role of economics is to identify the most efficient means of achieving the target.
Of course more than one agenda is being pursued. It makes sense to curtail the extent to which carbon dioxide is deposited in the atmosphere - particularly when the long term impacts are uncertain and there is a serious risk of catastrophic, irreversible damage. It also makes sense to curtail the exploitation of finite, exhaustible hydrocarbon resources when energy markets are insufficiently developed in global terms to convey the appropriate price signals to encourage the neccessary investment in research and development required to roll-out feasible alternatives. And for developed energy deficit economies it makes sense to reduce their reliance on hydrocarbons and to reduce the market and political power of
hydrocarbon exporters. In addition, as Michael H points out, reducing carbon dioxide emissions and deforestation will have direct benefits for developing economies.
However, it would prove impossible to generate a universal consensus around these policy objectives and science is expected to justify a target that might attract the necessary support. This is not what science is for. Unfortunately there are those working with the science (I am reluctant to call them scientists) who are prepared to accept this responsibility.