Good News – Climate Change Not a Big Deal Anymore

Posted by Enrique on 12.02.2009

Seeking consensus



As the 2009 holiday season launched last week, climate change deniers got an unexpected and magnificent gift. Some nefarious hacker broke into the computer system of one of the world's foremost climate research centers, and published a load of private e-mails that suggest researchers have been fudging the numbers on global warming. Oh, you shouldn't have!

The secret files of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) can be rooted around in here. For our story this week, let's have a look at how the powerful conspired to oppress the weak, and consider whether resources devoted to reducing carbon emissions might be better spent elsewhere.

The story so far…

First off, we should acknowledge that whoever stole these electronic files was most likely in violation of certain local laws. He or she is a very naughty person. On the other hand, the CRU appears to be involved in some shady tactics of its own:

Scientists at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

Well, it's certainly a shame they needed to save space so badly they tossed out the data that could possibly discredit the purported scientific "consensus" on global warming, no? I suppose it wouldn't be charitable to assume they were trying to cover anything up – most likely this data dump is just another example of the typical incompetence of government institutions.

On the other hand, more than one of the hacked e-mails written by CRU director Phil Jones indicated he didn't think he should have to share his data with anyone. Jones' opinion of freedom of information (FOI) requests for CRU's data seems to be highly nuanced: "The FOI line we're all using is this. IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] is exempt from any countries FOI – the skeptics have been told this. Even though we (MOHC, CRU/UEA) possibly hold relevant info the IPCC is not part our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don't have an obligation to pass it on." As I understand it, scientists are supposed to welcome rigorous testing of their hypotheses. How else would they know if they're right?

Another damning revelation within the CRU e-mails is the apparent lengths global warmists were willing to go to prevent dissenters from challenging CRU's work. In one widely-publicized exchange, Jones incautiously expresses his desire to stamp out the opposition:

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

In another, Jones and [Pennsylvania State University Professor Michael] Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal," Mann writes.

"I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," Jones replies.

That's a bit unfair. As you may be aware, "friends of earth" like former VPOTUS Al Gore frequently claim that most peer-reviewed studies favor their position, as he did in this 2006 op-ed. The CRU e-mails suggest the peer review process may not be all it's cracked up to be. Another Gore talking point is the IPCC climate models are super keen, and any doubts about them spring from a "failure to understand that these complex, carefully constructed super-computer climate models," which in his mind are beyond reproach.

But the CRU hack raises serious questions about how far we can blindly trust climate change researchers and their whizbang computer software. Who wrote the code for these climate models? Has the code been peer-reviewed? What is the basis for abiding faith in these complex computer climate models? "Trust us" isn't an acceptable line of argument at this point.

Although the CRU exposure doesn't necessarily prove that humans have no impact on climate change, it does seem to support one argument long made by global warming deniers – we don't fully understand the human factor of climate change, and the doomsday scenarios peddled by the Al Gore clique simply aren't credible. The reality may be the human factor of climate change isn't significant, and carbon dioxide caps/taxes aren't worthwhile when measured against the substantial economic costs. If nothing else, the CRU e-mails confirm there's a lot about climate change we aren't sure about.

In his 2007 book "Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming," Bjorn Lomborg agrees anthropogenic climate change is a concern, but it shouldn't be an overriding one when there are more cost-effective ways to improve the planet. If we devoted resources to fighting diseases like HIV/AIDS or malaria, we could achieve more social good for a lower cost – condoms and mosquito nets are relatively inexpensive compared to the economic effects of forced carbon reductions. Malnutrition, lack of water sanitation, and first-world agricultural subsidies are other problems afflicting the world (immediately) that could be addressed at a much lower expense with a much greater benefit than global warming. Now that serious doubts have been raised about the foundations of climate change research, it might be a good time to rethink our priorities.