I blog about environmental and social justice issues because I am very concerned about the health of the interdependent web of life of which we are a part.

Melting Arctic ice.......beautiful and frightening!

Search This Blog

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

ClimateGate Answered Per Scientific American

Claim 5: Climatologists conspire to hide the truth about global warming by locking away their data. Their so-called "consensus" on global warming is scientifically irrelevant because science isn't settled by popularity.
Can ClimateGate be true? aRe the deniers correct?  Are Climatologists conspiring   to tax and enslave the world?  The answer from Scientific American after the jump.....

A direct quote from page four .... the whole article is well worth reading.....

It is virtually impossible to disprove accusations of giant global conspiracies to those already convinced of them (can anyone prove that the Freemasons and the Roswell aliens aren't involved, too?). Let it therefore be noted that the magnitude of this hypothetical conspiracy would need to encompass many thousands of uncontroversial publications and respected scientists from around the world, stretching back through Arrhenius and Tyndall for almost 150 years. (See this feature on “Carbon Dioxide and Climate,” by Gilbert N. Plass, from Scientific American in July 1959.) It is also one so powerful that it has co-opted the official positions of dozens of scientific organizations including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Institute of Physics and the American Meteorological Society.

If there were a massive conspiracy to defraud the world on climate (and to what end?), surely the thousands of e-mails and other files stolen from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and distributed by hackers on November 20 would bear proof of it. So far, however, none has emerged. Most of the few statements that critics claim as evidence of malfeasance seem to have more innocent explanations that make sense in the context of scientists conversing privately and informally. It is deplorable if any of the scientists involved did prove to manipulate data dishonestly or thwart Freedom of Information requests; however, it is currently unclear whether that ultimately happened. What is missing is any clear indication of a widespread attempt to falsify and coordinate findings on a scale that could hold together a global cabal or significantly distort the record on climate change.

Climatologists are frequently frustrated by accusations that they are hiding their data or the details of their models because, as Gavin Schmidt points out, much of the relevant information is in public databases or otherwise accessible—a fact that contrarians conveniently ignore when insisting that scientists stonewall their requests. (And because nations differ in their rules on data confidentiality, scientists are not always at liberty to comply with some requests.) If contrarians want to deal a devastating blow to global warming theories, they should use the public data and develop their own credible models to demonstrate sound alternatives.

Yet that rarely occurs. In 2004 historian of science Naomi Oreskes published a well-known analysis of the peer-reviewed literature on global warming, "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change." Out of 928 papers whose abstracts she surveyed, she wrote, 75 percent explicitly or implicitly supported anthropogenic global warming, 25 percent were methodological or otherwise took no position on the subject—and none argued for purely natural explanations. Notwithstanding some attempts to debunk Oreskes' findings that eventually fell apart, her conclusion stands.

So ClimateGAte is merely another attempt by deniers to delay and  disparage. 

I keep wonderimg WHO funded the hackers who broke into CRU while they worked ...

1 comment:

  1. Em entrevista de oito minutos dada hoje à Jornalista brasileira Ana Luiza Herzog, o chefão do IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri disse sobre o CLIMATEGATE o seguinte: "Não vejo como uma questão importante. A questão é, sim, descobrir quem roubou esses e-mails e os colocou na rede porque toda essa ação, obviamente, é parte de um plano. O timing de toda essa história indica que ele tinha como objetivo atrapalhar as negociações que estão acontecendo aqui. Os processos de trabalho do IPCC são claros e fortes e suficiente para que não haja qualquer manipulação de dados.
    Bacana, né? Parece a hsitória do corno que quer tirar o sofá da sala. O sócio do Al Gore não está nem ai para apurar a fraude ou para refazer a verificação dos dados. Para ele, importante é botar as garras em quem dedurou a sacanagem que vinham fazendo em um dos pilares científicos do IPCC.
    E pensar que é a gente asim que estamos entregando o nosso futuro!