#7 – Why I’m lukewarm to climate change …

Reason #7: The Climategate emails

=========

I’m neither a denier nor a zealot …  so, according to British writer (& phrase-coiner) Matt Ridley, I’m a “lukewarmer”.

In a prior posts, I covered: (1) Unsettling science (2) Expired doomsday predictions (3) The “97% of scientists” baloney  (4) Dinking with the data  (5) Temperature readings – plus or minus and (6) What’s the earth’s temperature?

Let’s move on…

========

Reason #7: The Climategate emails

“Climategate” was a scandal involving the hacking of servers at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia and subsequent public release of thousands of emails among scientists working to prove that humans are causing a global warming crisis.

Of course, climate zealots thought the scandal was the hacking.

Climate skeptics thought the scandal was the content of the emails.

Sound familiar?

clip_image002
click for Amazon link

========

The leaked emails were quite revealing…

=========

According to a recap in Forbes …

Three themes were revealed in the purloined emails:

(1) Prominent scientists central to the global warming debate take measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions.

The original Climategate emails contained evidence of destroying information and data that the public would naturally assume would be available according to FOIA (freedom of information act) … the new batch includes suggested ways to hide emails from FOIA requests.

One “scientist” advised his fellow Climategate peers that they “must get rid of” the editor for a peer-reviewed science journal because he published some papers contradicting assertions of a global warming crisis.

========

(2) Many “scientists” view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry

“I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.”

“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the (advocacy) research grants we get – has to be well hidden.”

(3) Many of the scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

One scientist advised his peers: “The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what’s included and what is left out”

Another scientist warned: “Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest.”

==========

While the specific content of the emails hasn’t been refuted, “concerned scientists” (i.e. climate change zealots) mounted the usual sort of defense:

(1) The emails must be put in a broader context

(2) A few bad apples don’t represent the orchard

(3) It depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is

(4) It was just locker room talk

Hmmm ….

Those sound like familiar, oft rejected counter-claims, don’t they?

=========

#HomaFiles

Follow on Twitter @KenHoma            >> Latest Posts

=========

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s