Climategate II: Contradictions and hypocrisy

As it became obvious that Climategate II was the release of more emails from the same 2009 leak many prominent news outlets have tried adopting an ‘ostrich position’. But just as with Climategate 1.0 the contours of the climate debate change right in front of our eyes. The change  is leaving some of the expert pissants stranded in their own wake.

The slow drip-drip release of emails has had quite an unfortunate effect on the knights of the consensus— every leak gives them just enough rope to hang from, at the time of the next leak.

When the dust settled from Climategate part I, there was still a hastily hacked-out path back to the old (pre-2005) comforting fetal position. Many  activists, journalists and scientists resorted to taking this path. Clues to this type of thinking are evident in RealClimate’s latest post where it still imagines of going back to the good old days:

We anticipate normal service will be resumed shortly

But, ‘normal service’ never resumed at Realclimate even the last time around.  A few thoughtful ones of course, broke ranks. One fine day Judith Curry suddenly found herself cut off and facing the rabid wrath of the consensus. Top Amazon researcher and modeller Richard Betts though firmly in the consensus speaks his own mind. So does Jonathan Jones. So do Hans von Storch and Eduardo Zorita. von Storch in particular must be blinking at the trick pulled on on him when he was briefly editor-in-chief  at the journal Climate Research.

In any event one of the key messages that news and opinion outlets tried promulgating was this: ‘Yes, there have been some leaks. But the leaks do nothing to damage the consensus in climate science.  Scientists are unanimous in their belief of anthropogenic global warming’. But Climategate II emails paint a completely different picture unrolling behind the scenes.

So the message changes as well. Andrew Watson of the University of East Anglia in a rapid response item to Climategate II says (emphasis mine):

Reading down these selective quotes, what comes across to me is that climate scientists are a diverse, complex and argumentative bunch, much like any other group of people. They argue about the data and trash the models. They bitch about their colleagues. Some see global warming as a “cause” and all are passionate about the importance of their work, but they worry and complain that the science is becoming distorted by the politics. Some feel that their religious belief requires them to promote the stewardship of the Earth; others feel that their critics are driven by religious zealotry.

So what to make of all that? That they are diverse, sometimes contradictory, and have multiple motives. Well, so what? Welcome to the human race!

New York blogger Keith Kloor goes one step further:

But before we move on, there is one notable observation shared by all sides, which deserves greater attention. And that is the healthy display of outright skepticism in many of the highlighted [Climategate II email] exchanges.

Seriously gentlemen, when you talk about a diverse, contradictory bunch who argue about data and trash the models and display outright skepticism, are you sure you are not referring to climate deniers who akin to Holocaust deniers ought to be tried for crimes against humanity?

I particularly loved Watson’s ‘Welcome to the human race’ comment. Climate scientists belong to the rarefied elite who alone are capable of reading the tea leaves of IPCC models, and yet belong to the entire human race when they make mistakes.

Watson however left out one inconvenient bit from his description though – that some climate scientists were just as political and motivated as the rest of the human race is. But such an admission would be the deathknell to science’s credibility, as Christopher Caldwell at the Financial Times points out (via Junkscience.com):

But that is everything. Voters in a democracy do not argue about science. They argue about the authority of scientists. And scientists’ claim to authority comes from the perception that, in fact, they do not let their vanities and rivalries influence their work. Where others pursue their grubby little self-interest, scientists pursue only the truth. The emails of 2009, however, showed that some prominent members of the climate-change establishment were not operating in a spirit of openness. Defending a scientist’s furtiveness on the grounds that “his science is good” is like defending a politician’s blunder on the grounds that he “did nothing illegal”. The emails were damaging because they undermined the scientists’ claim to be speaking as scientists rather than as interested parties.

If scientists are shown to be colluding to arrive at a given result, then the halo around science dissipates. Any voter who does not want to be duped must suspend his scepticism. He must listen to scientists with no more deference than he does any other interest group.

To those outside the climate establishment part of the problem have long seemed obvious.

This brings us to the central problem – current deficiencies and uncertainties in climate science are not allowed to become part of everyday discussion. This is obviously because they are seen as damaging to the strength of the dominant paradigm. ‘Dominant paradigm’ is of course something we are all familiar with – “the earth is warming, humans are the cause and while there are some minor questions, most of the science is settled”.

“Let us make our case strong first”, the climate establishment thinks, “and then we can discuss our questions and doubts”. This is both wrong and foolish. You make your case strong by openly discussing doubts. But then of course, in order to do that, a measure of confidence in your own science and data is needed first.

In the statements by journalists and scientists above one can see the slow, painful by inexorable move to the same position. Keep your problems, your data and your methods out in the open. Your case may take a while to take root (and there is a chance it might not have any takers at all), but the support you get will be much stronger and long-lasting. Climategate II should be an eye-opener for establishment scientists still chasing illusions of UN-conference-mediated global policy change, wrought by their own science.

About these ads

5 comments

  • Pingback: Climate illusionists…UEA pedal *voodooscience | pindanpost

  • Julian Williams in Pembrokeshire

    Great summary Shub.

    There has been a development on WUWT; Willis has written an open letter to Phil Jones trashing his reputation and calling him out as a serial liar. He puts the pieces together and Jones is left naked.

    Personally I regard this letter a watershed moment,(a silver bullet that has the potential to slay at least one vampire) but I am ever an optimist.

    Here is a link to the letter

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/27/an-open-letter-to-dr-phil-jones-of-the-uea-cru/

  • Hey – do you have any idea how hard a pale grey typeface on a white background is for an old bugger like me with poor eyesight. Would you print a book the same way? No, course you wouldn’t – there is a very good reason books are printed in black and white, and that is because it is the easiest combination to read.

    w3c.org has all the advice you need on such.

  • ‘Science’ has long served as an equivalent of Papal Infallibility, except for the liberal humanists. I am ever so glad to see it being revealed for what it is – Technocracy – where the outcomes of scientific investigations are pre-determined by politicians and interest groups.

    This is not unique to climate science: it is to be found in every single place where liberal ideology has a stake. Every. Single. Place.

  • Julian Williams in Pembrokeshire

    The BBC and broken Hockey Stick?

    In March 2006 the BBC aired a program called Meltdown, (Youtube here) where the presenter posed as a mildly sceptical individual, trying to resolve the arguments for and against man-made climate change. The culmination of the program was the hockey stick graph, with the intention to show clear and unprecedented ‘dangerous’ climate change and that previous warm periods like the Medieval Warm Period were minimised.

    The fact that the ‘hockey stick’ had been discredited seems lost on the BBC, and they go to a scientist very clearly on one side of the debate to explain it to the viewer. No mention of the controversy, no mention of McIntyre & McKitrick’s papers and in fact the BBC producer is telling Briffa what he must do to convey the message of the program, to discredit sceptical ideas and convince the viewer of the consensus scientific arguments.

    Hi Keith, [Briffa]
    Good to talk to you this morning. Just a few thoughts to reiterate what we’re hoping to get out of filming tomorrow.

    1) Your interview appears at a crucial point in the film. Up until now our presenter (Paul Rose, he’ll be there tomorrow) has followed two conflicting thoughts. On the one hand he’s understood that the world is currently getting warmer.

    But on the other he’s discovered lots of historical stories (the Bronze Age, the MWP, the LIA) which tell him that climate changes naturally all the time. In trying to resolve this paradox he’s come across this thing called the hockey stick curve, and he’s come to you to explain it to him.

    2) Your essential job is to “prove” to Paul that what we’re experiencing now is NOT just another of those natural fluctuations we’ve seen in the past. The hockey stick curve is a crucial piece of evidence because it shows how abnormal the present period is – the present
    warming is unprecedented in speed and amplitude, something like that.

    This is a very bigmoment in the film when Paul is finally convinced of the reality of man made global
    warming.

    3) The hockey stick curve shows that what Paul thought were big climate events (the Bronze Age maximum, the MWP, the LIA) actually when looked at in a global context weren’t quite as dramatic as he thought. They’re there, but they are nothing like as sudden or big.

    4) Paul can question you on things like: How reliable is the hockey stick curve? How do you work out past climate (cue for you to talk about proxies)? What drives all the “natural”
    fluctations in climate (this can be answered in very broad terms eg it’s down to changes in the sun’s output, volcanoes etc)

    5) In terms of filming my first choice is to do it as a projection in Zicer, where you show the Mann curve, then flick up as many other ones as you think are important (within reason!) and elaborate the point that what’s happening now is unprecedented compared to these historic records. In my ideal world, you walk right up to the projector image and
    point things out on the screen, with parts of the projected image falling on your heads and shoulders. Stills of tree rings or anything else climate related eg ice cores, corals,
    would also work as powerpoints, because you could talk about them as egs of proxies.

    Hopefully this makes it clear what I’m trying to achieve.” (email 1683)

    Yea I think I get what they wanted to convey

    lots and lots more on this post about the BBC

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/27/c … t-the-bbc/

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