Climate research email hack shows global warming is real

It looks like the stolen emails from a climate research center at the University of East Anglia are a classic example of "the dog didn't bark."

That is, the big news from this peek into the private professional correspondence of climate scientists is that there is no big news.

Yawn: the appropriate reaction to finding out that scientists get irritated at global warming deniers who refuse to face facts, and talk about the best ways to get across the message that global climate change is for real.

One of the first and best reactions to the email server hack came from RealClimate, a highly reputable web site run by climate scientists who know their stuff.

More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.

Instead, there is a peek into how scientists actually interact and the conflicts show that the community is a far cry from the monolith that is sometimes imagined. People working constructively to improve joint publications; scientists who are friendly and agree on many of the big picture issues, disagreeing at times about details and engaging in ‘robust’ discussions; Scientists expressing frustration at the misrepresentation of their work in politicized arenas and complaining when media reports get it wrong; Scientists resenting the time they have to take out of their research to deal with over-hyped nonsense. None of this should be shocking.

So rather than showing that the global scientific consensus about climate change is the product of some monumental fakery, the emails demonstrate the opposite. As the saying goes, there is no there, there.

Global warming deniers seized on the mention of a "trick" in one of the emails as evidence of nefarious data manipulation. It turns out that all this proves is the deniers don't understand science talk.

In this context, a trick simply means a clever way of analyzing data.

Climate researchers necessarily have to move between non-technological (such as tree rings) and technological (such as accurate thermometers) ways of measuring the Earth's historical temperature since modern technology is, well, modern.

And that's what the "trick" amounts to: a way to combine two varieties of temperature data. Yawn.

Meanwhile, much more exciting stuff is happening in the real world of climate change.

Like, massive climate changes. Continued recent global warming. The heaviest rainfall ever recorded in the United Kingdom. This decade being the hottest in recorded history so far.

The truth will win out, as it almost always does. Global climate change is happening. Humans are causing it. We need to do something about it.

For an amusing historical perspective on the private correspondence of scientists, consider Isaac Newton.

If you own any shares in companies that produce reflecting telescopes, use differential and integral calculus, or rely on the laws of motion, I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the calculus myth has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after volumes of Newton’s private correspondence were compiled and published.

Comments

[Mort]

I know it's climate change now since global warming is not working out so well. Just explain for us less intelligent, how did all the ice melt from ice ages and why did we have ice ages, prior to man caused? Could it be the earth goes through cycles?
How's that Hope & Change working out for you? Looks worse on spending,fraud, transparency, but he is spending more on parties and does support the troops less and this is good? Not

[Nw]

Here's a good web site for all you skeptics out there....

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

[Blogger Brian]

Nw, thanks for the excellent link. I hope commenter Mort visits this site. It answers his skeptical question about what caused climate change before humans came along. Short answer:

"Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our climate's sensitivity to CO2."

[Mort]

"Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our climate's sensitivity to CO2."
I know your a rocket scientist, but how did the world solve the problem, it did it without human help, it did not teach cows not to fart, it did not create and electric car as there were none, electric or other wise. The earth has had many more damaging things, that caused much more damage than we can do. Sure the planet is sensitive and climate has changed from volcanos, meteors, all these cooled the earth put C02, ash into the air. What helps plants grow? C02

[Blogger Brian]

Mort, do you realize that climate changes have caused mass extinctions on Earth? Our world survives all sorts of changes (obviously), because Earth isn't conscious or alive.

But we humans are affected by climactic changes. The difference between "now" and "then" is that humans are having a large effect on the climate through our use of fossil fuels.

Your argument, which doesn't make sense, is that since nature has screwed up the planet in the past, we humans shouldn't worry about screwing it up even more.

Earth to Mort: our goal should be to have a livable planet. Yes, nature can be cruel. But we humans shouldn't add to the cruelty by our own stupid actions.

[johnsmoothy]

The emails are a side show. The program code is where the evidence of fraud will be found. I have programmed computers for sport since the late 70's (I am a physician in my day job). Even I, with a FORTRAN university course 30 years ago can see that the code is designed to give the same answer no matter what the input. So, forget the emails. Show the code to a friend who programs for a living. When he or she quits laughing, you will hear the plain English description of why this isn't even wrong.

[Mort]

I don't have a problem moving away from fossil fuels as better thing are developed. Taxing companies to death and not building nuclear power plants to charge your electric cars will fix what? Put companies out of business, unemployment, raise taxes, this hurts everyone. Don't forget to use more CFL bulbs which will add mecury to the landfills.
We design the best nuclear power plants and sell them to other countries, because the Eco group won't let us build them, or wind, wave power, what clean power is OK?

[conservativedude]

The global warming crowd are a bunch of pompous a$$es. More and more the true science is showing that their argument is pure hogwash. Ten years from now this will be the joke of the century... oh wait, Al Gore said in 10 years we'd be toast... but wait, that WAS 10 years ago.. hmm... oh well, the Goracle knows best.

[Nw]

"More and more the true science is showing that their argument is pure hogwash"

Show us some links to your "true science", conservativedude.

[antioch]

I went through the suggested link (http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php) and when I got to item #31 I am totally confused.

The answer to #1 suggested that solar activities "has little or no long term affect on climate". Yet, for #31 the answer suggests that "early 20th century warming was in large part due to rising solar activity and relatively quiet volcanic activity".

Huh? Don't the two answers contradict each other? Can you really pick and choose when solar activities is significant enough to affect climate and when it does not?

[Blogger Brian]

antioch, "early 20th century" isn't the same as "long term," is it? This seems to answer your concern.

[Randy]

Go here http://neithercorp.us/info
click on the media link on the left (big green one) and watch the 75 minute film which features what appear to be heavy duty scientists from such places as MIT and NASA debunking "man made global warming." I haven't paid too much attention to this argument up to now but this film raises the question: have we been punked by Al Gore? He was, after all, the guy who picked Joe Lieberman as his running mate.

[steven chi]

I have read some of the leak emails, It is hard to say the scienist in IPCC hid the fact or manipulate the data. we could not say data was manipulated by simply seeing the words " trick ". Iam from Motorola quality department and gad been coping the quality data every day using lot of statistical tool. sometime I play data and have to make some trick to make the chart to be more attactive or more convincible to management. sometimes we have to eliminate or neglect some kinds of data was not because we wanted to change or manipulate, instead we want to emphasis some critical things and did not want the noise( came from wrong measurement system, improper data collection by unskill full persons).

usually the management is very busy to look into the remarks and explanation why the data was not likely matching what we tried to say. for example, we know a process has been improved, but the data might not directly reflect the positive trend only because the data collection is not relative or unintendly distorted by noise or other factors, in that case we have to make correction.

internally, we often use the words "trick" or "tricky" during the data analysis with Six Sigma tools. that only means we found a good way to use the data and not to use some data or noise.

Just by reading one email is not a good way to make conclusion what is the opinion of the speakers. some is just political words or instent thinking.

by Steven chi

[Hallie]

I believe you are wrong. Trenberth from the National Center for Atmospheric Research, stated "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of global warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t".
Science is not decided by popular opinion. In 1400 the PC(politically correct)scientist would have had the earth as the middle of our solar system. Instead of just looking at news reports for the idea global warming, switch it up. See the opposing publics ideas.

[Blogger Brian]

Hallie, you're wrong that I'm wrong. Actually, I'm right. Trenberth wasn't referring to an ability to account for long-term global warming, but rather to an inability to account for short-term fluctuations in that indisputable trend. See his paper on the subject:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final2.pdf

Here's the abstract of the paper. You really need to do more research before you leave inaccurate comments. Oh, wait -- that's what global warming deniers do: ignore the facts and just say whatever they believe to be true.
-----------------
"Planned adaptation to climate change requires information about what is happening and why. While a long-term trend is for global warming, short-term periods of cooling can occur and have physical causes associated with natural variability. However, such natural variability means that energy is rearranged or changed within the climate system, and should be traceable. An assessment is given of our ability to track changes in reservoirs and flows of energy within the climate system. Arguments are given that developing the ability to do this is important, as it affects interpretations of global and especially regional climate change, and prospects for the future."

[tucson]

What I get from Trenberths quote cited above is that he really doesn't know what is going on. He is just studying it.

That seems to be the case with warming supporters and detractors. Nobody really knows what is happening. It's all theory.

Of course we can cite data to support certain theories, but they remain theories. What happens if Trenberth's short term cooling trend turns into a long one? Maybe it's a new ice age we're facing and not a meltdown. Previous ice ages were preceded by short periods of increased warming...not that I'm predicting an ice age this time.

Nevertheless it makes common sense to promote and develop clean environmental policies and technology. Goes without saying. It's stupid to piss in your own beer.