Climate-gate: Now With More Cheese

I've been a little remiss about the scandal gleefully termed as Climate-gate. The upshot of Climate-gate is this: someone hacked into e-mails sent from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia University. These e-mails suggest that data was doctored and deleted and that publicly-funded scientists conspired to not only destroy and distort data concerning global warming (the belief that the world's temperature is rising due to man-driven activities) or its newest euphemism- climate change- but to charge through any opposition. Though the CRU is not the only research institute, it one of the most prominent. The revelation of these damaging e-mails has hurt the climate change cause and caused its chief believers to fly into a tail-spin.

One of the most prominent believers in climate change is former Democratic vice-president Al Gore. It should be noted that Mr. Gore is not a scientist, nor have his political achievements been stellar. He does, however, live in a rather large and "un-green" house, flies across the globe and takes town cars to talks about a subject he is not wholly familiar with but is very well compensated for. He will not take unscripted questions or debate openly with anyone. His documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth", for which he was awarded an Oscar, is riddled with errors (please see here). Things like the sea is rising (the ice melting in Greenland will not cause catastrophic flooding because of the position of the ice, the need for constant warmer temperatures and the fact that this ice may melt millennia from now) and carbon dioxide driving up the world's temperature (it does not) are refuted by sound scientific studies. Mr. Gore doesn't mention these studies in his book which is widely distributed to schools. He doesn't mention any references at all.

When the e-mails came to light, Mr. Gore, at first cocooning himself from the blowback, then responded by saying the e-mails were "taken out of context" (emphasis mine):

Q: There is a sense in these e-mails, though, that data was hidden and hoarded, which is the opposite of the case you make [in your book] about having an open and fair debate.

A: I think it's been taken wildly out of context. The discussion you're referring to was about two papers that two of these scientists felt shouldn't be accepted as part of the IPCC report. Both of them, in fact, were included, referenced, and discussed. So an e-mail exchange more than 10 years ago* including somebody's opinion that a particular study isn't any good is one thing, but the fact that the study ended up being included and discussed anyway is a more powerful comment on what the result of the scientific process really is.

It's one thing for Al Gore to assume adults want to hear his unqualified opinions and pronouncements on the state of the earth's environment, even to the point of developing social, economic and even educational policies which affect entire countries and their economies, but to now assume they don't know when they are being hood-winked. Priceless.

Here is one such e-mail thinking adults need help deciphering from Mr. Gore lest they take things out of context (emphasis):

From: Phil Jones To: Sandy Tudhope Subject: Latest draft of WP1 Date: Thu Nov 12 10:18:54 2009
Cc: "Wolff, Eric W" , Rob Wilson , "Bass, Catherine" , "Turney, Christian" , Rob Allan , Keith Briffa , "t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx"

Dear All (especially Chris/Catherine), Here's the latest draft of WP1. All in the group have now commented and amended this. You should have the 3 supporting letters from Tree partners. Eric was contacting Eric Steig and Sandy (see below) is contacting 3 coral people. There is an issue about a Map. Rob W put one in his PhD page. This shows the corals. If we were to add the tree-ring sites we would mainly get a splodge of points in South America and NZ. Ice cores would just be over the AP and in the low-lat Andes. Issue is one of space. We already have 3pp fo this WP. Refs will reduce to about 0.5pp once we go to et al for 3 or more authors. A map would be useful for presentation to NERC, but is it essential for the submission? I'm away from tomorrow lunchtime for the weekend. Back in on Monday. Hope we'll be looking through more complete drafts next week! Cheers Phil

At 19:02 11/11/2009,
Sandy Tudhope wrote: Dear Phil et al, Good to speak to you earlier Phil and Rob W.. Please find attached a slightly modified version for WP1 ... I've just changed the coral section a bit. Briefly, I've identified the new coral coring sites (rather than get bogged down trying to describe how we will use analysis of model output to prioritise), plus I've added back in some references and details that I think help, but don't add too much length. I've written to Janice Lough, Julie Cole and Kim Cobb re being Project Partners (I actually spoke to Kim and she is keen). FIGURE: I still think it might be useful to have a map in the main proposal ... basically like the one Rob has in the PhD proposal ... we can simply have boxes around the tree ring and ice core regions. This map needn't be any larger than Rob already has it ... but it does help illustrate where we will get/have data. What do you all think? Cheers, Sandy

Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx NR4 7TJ UK

(search the rest here)

Ten years ago? Right.

Other e-mails indicate there were personal attacks, demands of endorsement, and lack of data to support some claims about temperature over the centuries.

Even someone whose understanding of climate science is rudimentary can find the discord in these e-mails and be concerned. After all, the recommendations of these scientists are the basis for "carbon cards" and "Earth hours".

Part of the reason why Mr. Gore doesn't debate openly is the inevitable skepticism. When former Alaska governor Sarah Palin asked the current administration to boycott the Copenhagen climate talks given the uncertainty the newly discovered e-mails put on current climate belief, Mr. Gore called her a "denier".



Pretty catty (not the above one).

Mrs. Palin's response:

The response to my op-ed by global warming alarmists has been interesting. Former Vice President Al Gore has called me a “denier” and informs us that climate change is “a principle in physics. It’s like gravity. It exists.” Perhaps he’s right. Climate change is like gravity – a naturally occurring phenomenon that existed long before, and will exist long after, any governmental attempts to affect it. However, he’s wrong in calling me a “denier.” As I noted in my op-ed above and in my original Facebook post on Climategate, I have never denied the existence of climate change. I just don’t think we can primarily blame man’s activities for the earth’s cyclical weather changes. Former Vice President Gore also claimed today that the scientific community has worked on this issue for 20 years, and therefore it is settled science. Well, the Climategate scandal involves the leading experts in this field, and if Climategate is proof of the larger method used over the past 20 years, then Vice President Gore seriously needs to consider that their findings are flawed, falsified, or inconclusive. Vice President Gore, the Climategate scandal exists. You might even say that it’s sort of like gravity: you simply can’t deny it.

Ouch- to Mr. Gore!

The fact that Al Gore- and others (especially those who would never touch China or India for their environmental "transgressions")- will never abandon "climate change" suggests a cultish attitude rooted in the multi-million dollar "green" industry. I'm sure there are many jokes about green and money but I'll dispense with them here. At the very least, the revelation that these e-mails and the following repercussions should have firmly planted a seed of doubt in everyone who tries being environmentally conscious. Science has been swallowed not by the mythical fundamentalists but by the very people who hide their true intentions behind the veneer of proper scientific inquiry. Carbon taxes and cap-and-trades will only serve to squash economies. Carbon cards are, at the very least, fascistic and complete invasions of one's privacy. The failure to disclose and peer-edit puts the scientific community in the light of narrow-minded boors who lord their alleged superiority over everyone.

We need truth, not rhetoric or alarmism.