Climatologists under pressure

[HAL 9000 96]

Climatologists under pressure

Abstract

Stolen e-mails have revealed no scientific conspiracy, but do highlight ways in which climate researchers could be better supported in the face of public scrutiny.

The e-mail archives stolen last month from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA), UK, have been greeted by the climate-change-denialist fringe as a propaganda windfall To these denialists, the scientists' scathing remarks about certain controversial palaeoclimate reconstructions qualify as the proverbial 'smoking gun': proof that mainstream climate researchers have systematically conspired to suppress evidence contradicting their doctrine that humans are warming the globe.This paranoid interpretation would be laughable were it not for the fact that obstructionist politicians in the US Senate will probably use it next year as an excuse to stiffen their opposition to the country's much needed climate bill. Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real — or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails.

First, Earth's cryosphere is changing as one would expect in a warming climate. These changes include glacier retreat, thinning and areal reduction of Arctic sea ice, reductions in permafrost and accelerated loss of mass from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. Second, the global sea level is rising. The rise is caused in part by water pouring in from melting glaciers and ice sheets, but also by thermal expansion as the oceans warm. Third, decades of biological data on blooming dates and the like suggest that spring is arriving earlier each year.

Denialists often maintain that these changes are just a symptom of natural climate variability. But when climate modellers test this assertion by running their simulations with greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide held fixed, the results bear little resemblance to the observed warming. The strong implication is that increased greenhouse-gas emissions have played an important part in recent warming, meaning that curbing the world's voracious appetite for carbon is essential.

Mail trail

A fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support the denialists' conspiracy theories. In one of the more controversial exchanges, UEA scientists sharply criticized the quality of two papers that question the uniqueness of recent global warming (S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick Energy Environ. 14, 751–771; 2003 and W. Soon and S. Baliunas Clim. Res. 23, 89–110; 2003) and vowed to keep at least the first paper out of the upcoming Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Whatever the e-mail authors may have said to one another in (supposed) privacy, however, what matters is how they acted. And the fact is that, in the end, neither they nor the IPCC suppressed anything: when the assessment report was published in 2007 it referenced and discussed both papers.

If there are benefits to the e-mail theft, one is to highlight yet again the harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers, often in the form of endless, time-consuming demands for information under the US and UK Freedom of Information Acts. Governments and institutions need to provide tangible assistance for researchers facing such a burden.

The e-mail theft also highlights how difficult it can be for climate researchers to follow the canons of scientific openness, which require them to make public the data on which they base their conclusions. This is best done via open online archives, such as the ones maintained by the IPCC (http://www.ipcc-data.org) and the US National Climatic Data Center (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html).

Tricky business

But for much crucial information the reality is very different. Researchers are barred from publicly releasing meteorological data from many countries owing to contractual restrictions. Moreover, in countries such as Germany, France and the United Kingdom, the national meteorological services will provide data sets only when researchers specifically request them, and only after a significant delay. The lack of standard formats can also make it hard to compare and integrate data from different sources. Every aspect of this situation needs to change: if the current episode does not spur meteorological services to improve researchers' ease of access, governments should force them to do so.

The stolen e-mails have prompted queries about whether Nature will investigate some of the researchers' own papers. One e-mail talked of displaying the data using a 'trick' — slang for a clever (and legitimate) technique, but a word that denialists have used to accuse the researchers of fabricating their results. It is Nature's policy to investigate such matters if there are substantive reasons for concern, but nothing we have seen so far in the e-mails qualifies.

The UEA responded too slowly to the eruption of coverage in the media, but deserves credit for now being publicly supportive of the integrity of its scientists while also holding an independent investigation of its researchers' compliance with Britain's freedom of information requirements (see http://go.nature.com/zRBXRP).

In the end, what the UEA e-mails really show is that scientists are human beings — and that unrelenting opposition to their work can goad them to the limits of tolerance, and tempt them to act in ways that undermine scientific values. Yet it is precisely in such circumstances that researchers should strive to act and communicate professionally, and make their data and methods available to others, lest they provide their worst critics with ammunition. After all, the pressures the UEA e-mailers experienced may be nothing compared with what will emerge as the United States debates a climate bill next year, and denialists use every means at their disposal to undermine trust in scientists and science.

Source: Nature 462, 545 (3 December 2009) | doi:10.1038/462545a; Published online 2 December 2009

*****

Copyright may force editing to abstract length only. Moderation may decide to do so at liberty.

Edited December 3, 2009 by HAL 9000

[Peikko 1,575]

The problem for Americans is that GW/Climate change has become a political issue in the sense that the Conservative wing view GW as a vehicle to increase the power of government to prevent them from doing things that they want to do, regardless of any environmental impact because in the US one should have the freedom to do anything, including waste and destroy wantonly. That is the American way.

What's sort of ironic to me, is that one of the controversial aspects of climate change is this whole carbon credits issue. Yet, this was an 'American invention' that came about because American industrialists (NOT GOVERNMENT) insisted this was the only way they would participate in the Kyoto agreement (in other words agree to limits on emissions) and was modeled on a sulpher emissions trade program (which as I understand it was successfully implemented). The rest of the world agreed to this, in order to bring America on board and hey presto, America changed their minds and withdrew from the agreement leaving Europe et al holding that particular baby. Nice

[nowhereman 1]

Hal don't confuse VJers with facts!

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I honestly believe it can not be stopped and we are better off investing in ways to adapt. Assuming every nation in the world does its part except for China and India its still going to happen. I'll be honest too and say China is doing more then the US, however it won't make a big enough difference because the country will continue to grow. The only way China could comply is if it basically halted its development of industry etc.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

The solution to CC/GW is cap and trade? Which is a tax. You can 'pollute' all you want, just pay a tax. Doesn't this throw up red flags for everyone?

Corporations = bad, but Gore making millions off of carbon credits/ GW scare mongering is OK?

[nowhereman 1]

The solution to CC/GW is cap and trade? Which is a tax. You can 'pollute' all you want, just pay a tax. Doesn't this throw up red flags for everyone?

Corporations = bad, but Gore making millions off of carbon credits/ GW scare mongering is OK?

The solution is cleaner energy solutions & less dependency on foreign oil.

[Peikko 1,575]

The solution to CC/GW is cap and trade? Which is a tax. You can 'pollute' all you want, just pay a tax. Doesn't this throw up red flags for everyone?

Corporations = bad, but Gore making millions off of carbon credits/ GW scare mongering is OK?

That's not what the carbon credit systems is about and it wasn't instigated by Al Gore. I am not sure how this misinformation came about. Regardless, this horror from the right that Al Gore might be right about anything is so anathema you can't see past that to anything else at all.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

listen we all know we are going to fail, even members of Kyoto couldn't meet their targets....its time to wake and see reality...in fact some believe we may have already failed.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Sousuke

[HAL 9000 96]

I knew someone had to come whining in jealousy about Al Gore in this thread.

Lets keep it simple folks- the real scam has been shown to be all the obstructionist whining coming from ignorant and politically-motivated naysayers.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

The solution to CC/GW is cap and trade? Which is a tax. You can 'pollute' all you want, just pay a tax. Doesn't this throw up red flags for everyone?

Corporations = bad, but Gore making millions off of carbon credits/ GW scare mongering is OK?

That's not what the carbon credit systems is about and it wasn't instigated by Al Gore. I am not sure how this misinformation came about. Regardless, this horror from the right that Al Gore might be right about anything is so anathema you can't see past that to anything else at all.

I didn't say that. He is profiting from it though.

I knew I shouldn't have meantioned Al Gore. He does distract from the issue. I'll admit it.

[Dan J 277]

The solution to CC/GW is cap and trade? Which is a tax. You can 'pollute' all you want, just pay a tax. Doesn't this throw up red flags for everyone?

Corporations = bad, but Gore making millions off of carbon credits/ GW scare mongering is OK?

All it does is shift the environmental impact cost of certain business decisions to the producers instead of leaving it for communities and government to deal with it later. If private industry is forced to pay for their pollution, they will have to innovate to cut costs and in the end, they still make money and we end up with less pollution.

The problem is really innovation. Its often cheaper to fight and protect your business model than to innovate and improve on it and business decisions are usually only considered from the financial perspective. We see this all over, with media companies fighting the internet, trying to bring it to their own terms, cable companies introducing restrictions on broadband to limit competition with the much higher profit cable TV division and newspapers trying to make people pay for content that has more or less become commoditized.

[Peikko 1,575]

The solution to CC/GW is cap and trade? Which is a tax. You can 'pollute' all you want, just pay a tax. Doesn't this throw up red flags for everyone?

Corporations = bad, but Gore making millions off of carbon credits/ GW scare mongering is OK?

That's not what the carbon credit systems is about and it wasn't instigated by Al Gore. I am not sure how this misinformation came about. Regardless, this horror from the right that Al Gore might be right about anything is so anathema you can't see past that to anything else at all.

I didn't say that. He is profiting from it though.

I knew I shouldn't have meantioned Al Gore. He does distract from the issue. I'll admit it.

The carbon credit system is not universally loved and it is very pertinent that the Europeans (all socialist governments apparently) did not want this system at all and ONLY accepted it at the behest of the American industrialists who used a similar system when dealing with acid rain and who then subsequently refused to actually go along with the system they wanted. This is really not a government driven issue at all.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[HAL 9000 96]

Hey its pretty simple- pollute... then pay up if you don't want to reduce the pollution.

An ideal thing to do would be to forbid the pollution by awarding innovation. Maybe that's part of Mr Gore's plan all along?

Can we move on with the actual topic?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Hey its pretty simple- pollute... then pay up if you don't want to reduce the pollution.

An ideal thing to do would be to forbid the pollution by awarding innovation. Maybe that's part of Mr Gore's plan all along?

Can we move on with the actual topic?

Sure, Global Warming is UNPREVENTABLE in this current political/economic climate.

[HAL 9000 96]

Hey its pretty simple- pollute... then pay up if you don't want to reduce the pollution.

An ideal thing to do would be to forbid the pollution by awarding innovation. Maybe that's part of Mr Gore's plan all along?

Can we move on with the actual topic?

Sure, Global Warming is UNPREVENTABLE in this current political/economic climate.

Unfortunately. Too much a combination of political convenience, ignorance, and misrepresentation of fact. Maybe it IS too late to reverse things.