Why This Email Leak Changes Nothing (as Yet)

Denialists had made their mind up about the conclusion then went around looking for evidence to fit it. The email leak, as far as many of them are concerned seems to be a slam dunk, it's all over now.

I do wish it were true, as climate change even in a mild form means misery and loss for millions. Sadly I can't see how it is - I can't buy into the Denialists's claims because logic says I can't and as a sceptic I have to be sceptical of all the arguments put to me.

If you read Dawkins's new book 'The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution' the point he makes over and over is that while creationists push at issues like missing links, even without the fossil record, the genetic evidence alone is overwhelming. So those who for ideological reasons, wish to overturn evolution need to not only overturn the fossil evidence, but they also need to account for the genetic evidence, the evidence from cell biological, population distribution, ecological webs and so on.

The reason why creationism have not even come close to overturning evolution despite over 150 years of trying is that there is simply no evidence they can offer that accounts for what we see in the natural world. All they can do is engage in bureaucratic arguments over the evidence and how it is presented. Put simply, they have nothing real to bring to the table.

The same issue is at play here with climate change. Even if the one of the temperature records were overturned, you still need to account for the changes in sea temperatures, changes in breading patterns, changes in migration patterns, changes in disease patters, in rainfall and monsoons, melting glaciers and so on. All these point to something happening; and fast.

The reason why climate change denialism has not even come close to overturning AGW despite million$ of oil money spend and why this email leak, while embarrassing for some scientists, the weight of evidence is still overwhelming. There is simply no evidence they (denialists) can offer that accounts for what we see in the natural world. All they can do is engage in bureaucratic arguments over the evidence and how it is presented. Put simply, they have nothing real to bring to the table.

Now for those who read science, disputes over the peer review process are nothing new. It happens all the time. Read ScienceBlogs (which I do) or New Scientist (which I do) or people like Ben Goldacre (which I do) and you'd know this. You also know that scientists argue amongst themselves - 'cos they are human - that's why a peer review process is so important. It is also why what is said in the emails is no big surprise. So, if the AGW is to be overturned, as a sceptic, the weight of evidence still needs to come from the flat earth society. As a sceptic, simply telling me something is wrong 'cos you say so, does not cut it. You still need evidence. Point to emails out of context is no where near enough. You need to account for example; why in the north Atlantic, 36 of fish stocks studied, the distribution range of 24 of them had changed in unison with the rising water temperatures that have been occurring off the Northeast since the 1970s? - That is one of hundreds of changes we are seeing.

A sceptic needs to know why. Telling us about the New World Order or some other 'conspiracy' is not an answer.

The Email Hack - No It Does Not Mean Case Closed

There are so many falicies over this climate change email hack, it is untrue. Denialists have been saying that this proves the science is not settled and how dare those that accepted the evidence tell them it is settled....at the same time as declaring that the issue is now settled because they say it is.

Then you have the classic double-standard of bleating on about 'hidden evidence' when it appears to suit them while being totally silent on hidden evidence that shows they are wrong. For example;
- White House Declassifies 1000 Global Warming Evidence Photos Bush Hid
- Bush Administration covered up global warming finding, then deliberately kept from Democrats

The denialists are also committing the creationism logical fallacy that ‘if I can prove you wrong, then by default I am right’ whereby creationists go for evolution on the basis that if they disprove it, then their pet theory must be right – but even if you could prove it is wrong – what is to say that God created the world? Why not Zeus? So even if you could prove that the mainstream AGW theory is incorrect (which a few emails out of context do not) you’ll still have to explain all the real-world effects we are seeing all around us (record floods, again, anyone? Changes in disease patterns, the drowning of Balgladesh, melting glaciers, the changes in weather patterns that led to Darfur crisis and so on).



Here's a few good source on the issue... You can read it from the scientists themselves...or...

This article...

Anthony Leiserowitz, the director of the Yale Project on Climate Change, said the release of the e-mails will be remembered mostly as as embarrassment to the researchers.

"It shows that the process of science is not always pristine," said Leiserowitz. "But there's no smoking gun in the e-mails from what I've seen."

Leiserowitz, who is a social scientist, said the e-mails would provide fodder for the 2 to 3 percent of the general public that are hard-core climate change doubters. "For that small group it is like meat to the wolves."

At U.N. climate talks set for next month in Copenhagen, the top producers of greenhouse gases are expected to reach political agreements on tackling climate change, but not agree on hard targets for taking action.

The e-mails may serve as good gossip in the halls at the meeting, but will not play a big role otherwise, experts said.

And here..

The denialosphere has trumpeted the contents as proof of the fraudulent behavior of climate scientists, especially Phil Jones at CRU. But what’s most remarkable is that even the bits pointed to as a “smoking gun” really don’t support that idea. There are certainly phrases which seem incriminating when taken out of context — but when put into context are nothing of the kind.

Continuing to suggest that climate scientists generally, and Phil Jones specifically, are engaged in a conspiracy to deceive the world about global warming, when there turns out to be no real evidence of it in 10 years of personal communications (only words that can be twisted when taken out of context), demonstrates the idiocy of those who stand by that suggestion. If anything, the messages prove that there is not any conspiracy, and the scientists at CRU did not fudge data or engage in deceptive practices to push their “agenda.”

Hacked Emails Reveal; Nothing Much

So the story so far is that 13 years worth of private emails between climate scientists were hacked and released onto the net. Naturally climate-denialists are pouring though them looking for evidence of the huge white-coat conspiracy that they seem to think exists and what have they found? A hand full of quotes that out of context look a bit dodgy.

What is missed in all this hot air is that global warming's effects are happening now - the denialists are having a bureaucratic argument when we can see, from observation, the impact it is happening. They are asking us to turn our heads away from what we can see - and look though some old emails instead. Here's a few examples from the last few weeks alone:

- Warming drives off Cape Cod's namesake, other fish.
- Ravaged by drought, Madagascar feels the full effect of climate change.
- Kashmir's main glacier "melting at alarming speed".
- The Spread of New Diseases: The Climate Connection.

How do emails explain these? They don't - it's a distraction from what is already happening by the flat earth society and it stinks.

Here's an example of a cherry picked quote - this is probably the most doogy looking so far found:

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

Which sounds bad - but remember, this is private 'shop talk' discussion - so add the context and you get;

Mann said the “trick” Jones referred to was placing a chart of proxy temperature records, which ended in 1980, next to a line showing the temperature record collected by instruments from that time onward. “It’s hardly anything you would call a trick,” Mann said, adding that both charts were differentiated and clearly marked.

And as also expected: The “decline” refers to the “divergence problem”. This is where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. The divergence problem is discussed as early as 1998, suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature in recent decades (Briffa 1998). It is also examined more recently in Wilmking 2008 which explores techniques in eliminating the divergence problem. So when you look at Phil Jone’s email in the context of the science discussed, it is not the schemings of a climate conspiracy but technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature.

How about this one?

You need not give yourself the trouble of examining all the calculations of the Scholium. Such errors as do not depend upon wrong reasoning can be of no great consequence & may be corrected by the reader.

Or this one?

I wrote to you on Tuesday that the last leafe of the papers you sent me should be altered because it refers to a manuscript in my private custody & not yet upon record.

Both look bad - and both are written by Isaac Newton in private letters. It shows that out of context anything can look bad. Does that means the theory of gravity is wrong?

The Failing List of Evidence for Global Warming Denial

A denialist website put out - with much fanfare - a list of 450 peer reviewed articles that supported their position. I guess the idea is that - how can you argue with that much evidence? Except that, like all denier flack, it consists of more spin than substance. Watch the number tumble down as people start to sceptically examine the list... A quick look at the work being done on the list shows;

- 82 papers on the list are from a non-peer revised journal, Energy & Environment.
- 7 are known to be wrong; based on flawed science.
- A known sceptic author, Roger Pielke Jr suggests that 21 papers should not be on the list (however the list author disagreed and kept them.)

Also if you look at who wrote the papers, a huge 157 of them come from 15 authors which reads like of who's who of oil industry paid denialists. Here's a sample;

S. Fred Singer 6 (Exxon mobil's money buy his opinion)
Patrick J. Michaels 26 - connected to no less than 11 think tanks and associations that have received money from oil-giant ExxonMobil
Ross McKitrick 14 - Economist linked to ExxonMobil funded groups.
Richard S. Lindzen 15 - Member of oil funded thinktank.
Willie H. Soon 13 - Linked to a whole host of oil backed front groups.
Roy W. Spencer 6 - Writer for ExxonMobil funded dirge.

Plus a whole host of other issues the whittle the list down (and eviscerate it's credibility) from a paper that criticises research methods used 20 years ago (a bit outdated now...) to papers that are complimentary to human-cased climate change. The list is bumkum. Typical denialism, big on spin, small on substance. But here is my favourite bit of the whole debark - one researcher spotted a paper that he was the lead author of on the list. He's a bit surprised as it says nothing against human-cased climate change. Here's what he says;

I just noticed I’m the lead author on one of the papers on the list. I have absolutely no idea how that paper could be construed as “skeptical of man-made global warming.” I have no idea how it could be construed as saying anything at all about man-made global warming.

And the response of the arrogant wingnut who complied the rapidly shrinking list?

That is nice that the lead author of that paper has no idea why he is on the list, maybe he should read it before commenting in the future so he does not make ridiculous comments like that.

Yup, that's right - he's telling the author of a scientific paper that he knows less about what it means than politicised interpretation of an armchair amateur climatologist.

Staggering.

Reporting/Blogging Local Democracy

There has been much in the news of late about how the local newspaper model is broken and how if it fails, then local democracy will be threatened. While some local papers may hold power to account, I don't see it here with the Evening Pest. Indeed in this interesting talk the speaker, Anthony Lilley, notes that local news has not been holding power to account for some time.

That does not mean reporting on it is dead - far from it. There is a thriving eco-system of blogs - with great ones like the Bristol Blogger doing amazing work reporting on the issues that count. For example look as the top journalism on the World Cup Bids - in contrast to the Post's 'churnalism' and unquestioning support for any big business developer that saunters around the city - actually reading the small print and holding it up for scrutiny.

This is a dynamic environment - blogs come and go; for example I am sad to see that Evening Post Watch has ended - a big thanks for the work you did do. Post Watch's coverage of Carboot Circus was exemplary - new blogs arrive all the time. Its an exciting and dynamic world and growing all the time in complexity and its reflection of the diversity of the city. By contrast the Post is the same-old-same-old rah-rah cars-drivers and airports and boo-boo unions and the greenies and climate change? bugger that - build, baby build. They are a terrible example of the rotting carcass of old media.