Cool It on Warming

A cache of stolen e-mails among prominent climate scientists reveals disturbing evidence of possible manipulation of data, of attempts to destroy data so it will not be available in response to Freedom of Information requests (why not proudly stand behind your work?), and suggestions on how to damage the careers of warming skeptics. This comes at a time when even those scientists who say we’re facing climate catastrophe have to acknowledge that for the past 10 years—in defiance of the models that predicted relentless increase—global temperatures have flattened.

For years, anyone who questioned the warming orthodoxy has been called a flat-earther or a tool of the energy companies. But before we go further toward a massive rearrangement of global economies in order to save us all from melting, this seems like a good time to acknowledge that the predictions aren’t panning out and that it’s legitimate to examine the data and the assumptions of the scientists who say they are in sole possession of the truth.

Tags: climate scientists email, global warming

Emily Yoffe is Slate's Dear Prudence and Human Guinea Pig (emilyyoffe@hotmail.com)

Comments

Cool It on Warming

By: digithedd | Wed, 12/09/2009 - 13:35

Wow...
Let's see, Spring comes earlier in nearly all places. Species are migrating to cooler locations or up in altitude. Every major frozen place showing record low levels of ice. Yes, even East Antarctica. The ocean is warmer. The PH of the ocean has changed.

The real world observations are far scarier then anything the models predict.

And your worried about 10 year old emails, you haven't read? And choose to believe the FOX news.

To address your points:
1)"possible manipulation of data," Uh, this was well know exclusion of data thoroughly hashed over by the denialist camp for many years. Post 1960 they used real measurements instead of tree rings... That is the "trick".

2)"attempts to destroy data": well, data was received from another country with the requirement to not release. This other countries data was included in the set so the set cannot be legally released, then again, it cannot be legally withheld.

2) "global temperatures have flattened." The only data that shows that is heavily manipulated data from denialist camp. Or you can choose the hottest year 1998 and compare it to the next 10... All hotter then the average 150 years... SO if you cherry pick, yep, nothing has beaten the record. Damn close, frighteningly close and they're all recent.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

The question I have to ask is why are people so unwilling to change their minds when presented with direct evidence?

In this case why are people willing to believe what mass media outlets relate, but unwilling to read, let alone believe scientific outlets about something clear scientific in nature?
Try this: http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/earth_climate/global_warming/

Example: We have watched evolution in action in several species... But we still get denials about evolution...

The real issue

By: Xando | Thu, 11/26/2009 - 06:44

The stolen e-mails don't really 'disprove' anthropogenic global warming. But what they do is validate all of the rational skeptics who have been saying for years that the science is far too tenuous to enact sweeping change - and discredit the alarmists who insist that we must act now or all is lost. My suspicion is that in the future we'll remember this period much like we remember eugenics - a doctrine that was "somewhat right", but ultimately replaced by a far more accurate science (genetics).

Climatologists have to acknowledge no such thing

By: stljd | Wed, 11/25/2009 - 13:07

Emily, while railing against one set of scientists manipulating data, you're falling prey to another set of manipulations. Starting the trendline at 1998 is a great example of how cherry picking can lead to distorted results. 1998 was a very hot year, which distorts the observable trend when you start with that year. It doesn't change the fact that the last ten years (1999-2008) have, on average, been about .18 degrees C hotter than the ten years before that (1989-1998). ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_ocean.90S.90N.df_...

Also, it seems strange the Emily would choose to base her verification on this "must be acknowledged" claim by linking to an article in a foreign magazine. Were there no US articles available, or was she hoping to conceal any editorial bias by using an unfamiliar source? Furthermore, the primary source in that article is Mojib Latif, a scientist who has long predicted cooling, "as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming."

So no, Emily, I don't know that you're a flat-earther or a tool of the energy companies. But at the very least, you're pretty gullible and statistically illiterate.

The worst thing about it

By: _Nancy_ | Mon, 11/23/2009 - 13:50

isn't simply manipulating the data - that at least will be exposed over time. It's not the snottiness which, seems pretty par for the course in academia. The worst thing is the profound arrogance and sanctimony of people who feel little lies are okay if they serve a greater truth. When science is no longer the pursuit of truth, it's no longer science any more. It's faith.
Funnily enough, a British judge just ruled that a "sustainability officer" who was fired from a property firm, was entitled to legal protection for his ‘philosophical belief’ in climate change. This is essentially offering it the same protection as religious belief. Makes you think...

Predictions haven't panned out?

By: auros | Mon, 11/23/2009 - 13:35

Sure... in the sense that the positive feedback loops have turned out to be STRONGER than expected -- melting of ice shelfs and glaciers proceeding faster than expected, carbon release from tundra permafrost starting to be a concern, ocean acidification threatening the continued ability of phytoplankton to photosynthesize (and thus improve the ocean's ability to act as a carbon sink).

So there were a few bad-apple scientists who, in desperation to fight against deniers, cut some corners. As JDWebb said, nobody was fabricating data from whole cloth (as in the Korean stem cell research story). And the vast majority of scientists involved with, for instance, IPCC, are completely innocent -- but of course, the idiots who engaged in poor conduct have just handed denialists a powerful weapon, since they can now smear all climate research with the sins of a few.

As for seeking to damage the reputations of denialists -- again, it's the actions of a few, and, additionally, is standard operating procedure for the other side. (You think the Greening Earth Society, when it was still operating, didn't do "oppo research"? You're dreaming.)

None of the scientists who say that global warming exists are claiming to be in "sole possession" of the truth. They believe warming is real because the entire community has assembled the evidence and compared notes.

Keep in mind that the phrase

By: JDWebb | Mon, 11/23/2009 - 15:08

Keep in mind that the phrase saying 'trick' and 'hide' means something slightly different from what it looks like it means (confusing, yes). Let's be clear. From this email he's not making up data, he's simply trying to manipulate the numbers to make it more obvious.

Unethical? Highly. A lie? Semantically, yep. Is he stupid enough to think that a very unsexy problem needed to be made more grave for people to take it seriously? Probably. Does he deserve to lose some credit and face value as an academic? Yep. Did he make up data? I'm hesitant to say yes.

As for damaging the careers of sceptics, if anyone thinks this doesn't happen widespread in academia (or private business, or public bureaucracies, etc.) then please email me, I've got a bridge to sell you.

Deserve more consideration? Yes. But this is far from a smoking gun.

And, oddly enough, 2009 is currently projected to be the 5th warmest year of the last 130, at least according to those Al Gore lovers at NASA. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

(Also, Emily, the 'global temperatures have flattened.' link seems to 404)
edit: Not anymore, thanks!