The data used by the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research unit is perfectly valid. Do not listen to a word the deniers have to say.
The anti-scientific side of the blogosphere, and increasingly the mainstream media, is alight with what David Cameron’s old University friend James Delingpole hysterically asserts via his Daily Telegraph column could be the ‘final nail in the coffin of anthropogenic climate change’.
What Delingpole, together with the blowhards and headbangers on the US right are calling ‘climategate’, revolves around emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) which were hacked and posted on the internet on Friday.
These climate deniers seem to think the CRU, like the Royal Society, NASA and the US National Academy of Sciences, are agents of a clandestine global movement against the truth. By Saturday morning this story had already resulted in over 600 blog posts and around 200 mainstream press mentions.
For the best reaction to this hyped up story making its way around the right wing echo chamber – see Realclimate’s reaction. (This is a website run by some of the world’s pre-eminent climate scientists.) Their team of peer-reviewed climate experts conclude:
“The timing of this particular episode is probably not coincidental. But if cherry-picked out-of-context phrases from stolen personal emails is the only response to the weight of the scientific evidence for the human influence on climate change, then there probably isn’t much to it.”
Professor Bob Watson – a chief science adviser to the government and former IPCC author – told the Today Programme this morning:
“These scientists at the University of East Anglia are both honourable and world class, their data is not being manipulated in any bad way whatsoever and it is totally consistent with two independent data sets in the United States, one at NASA, and one at NOAA, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and so I think while some of the wording in those emails is inappropriate and should have been more careful, these scientists are not manipulating or hiding anything. There’s absolutely no doubt the world’s climate is changing, and this data set, along with other data sets, proves that beyond doubt.”
This is also an amusing must read reaction that provides some perspective.
Today Professor Phil Jones, the director of the CRU, whose emails are at the centre of the story, said he wanted to put the record straight, saying he saw the hack “caused a great deal of ill-informed comment”, and Kevin Trenberth, another leading climate change scientist whose private emails were also among those stolen, said the leaks may have been aimed at undermining next month’s global climate summit in Denmark.
He said:
“It is right before the Copenhagen debate, I’m sure that is not a coincidence.”
UPDATE 12:00 25/11/09
Left Foot Forward’s Rupert Read has a follow-up on the story here.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
31 Responses to “Climatic Research Unit data is valid – don’t let the sceptics tell you otherwise”
Why Lord Lawson is wrong | Left Foot Forward
[…] this earlier post on Left Foot […]
Anon E Mouse
Shamik – Who did I smear?
Accusing people of things they haven’t done when you are a moderator on this blog gives you every advantage and is not fair.
And on the subject of poor countries your party has tried to bomb Iraq and Afganistan back to the stone age – and as a Labour voter don’t call me Right Wing – your New Labour party backed George Bush.
Scott B
The people claiming that this is the end of the AGW debate are foolish but so are those saying that CRU data is completely valid. We don’t know that and the information in this leak casts things in more doubt. At the very least, these e-mails show concerted efforts to get around the FOIA processes to keep their data from being reviewed by outsiders and suggestions that the peer review process was being gamed. This lack of transparency is going to cast doubt in peoples’ minds and I can’t understand why most on the left don’t have an issue with it. How do we know that HADCRUT3 database is accurate? We haven’t seen any of the code or procedures in place for the adjustments. It can’t be extremely off (like the right would like people to think) since we have GISS to compare to, but would it shock me if the way they pick sites to include and how they fill in missing was not exactly scientific? Not at all after seeing this.
Specific comments to the original author’s piece.
“These climate deniers seem to think the CRU, like the Royal Society, NASA and the US National Academy of Sciences, are agents of a clandestine global movement against the truth. ”
Way to smear whole groups of people. Keep using the right’s tactics…that’ll win people over.
“For the best reaction to this hyped up story making its way around the right wing echo chamber – see Realclimate’s reaction. (This is a website run by some of the world’s pre-eminent climate scientists.) Their team of peer-reviewed climate experts conclude: ”
You fail to mention that RC is run by some of the same people captured in these e-mails. They are probably not the best place to go to get an unbiased reaction. Not that I’m claiming sites like WUWT are either but saying RC has the best reaction is showing your bias.
“Today Professor Phil Jones, the director of the CRU, whose emails are at the centre of the story, said he wanted to put the record straight, saying he saw the hack “caused a great deal of ill-informed comment”, and Kevin Trenberth, another leading climate change scientist whose private emails were also among those stolen, said the leaks may have been aimed at undermining next month’s global climate summit in Denmark”
There’s a very easy way this could have all been avoided. Release the data. We don’t need all of these e-mails, but for every peer reviewed paper, everything that would be needed to allow others to reproduce the paper’s results should be public. This would allow all people, no matter what their biases are, to make informed conclusions. If their papers and conclusions are correct, the data will show it and they truly won’t have to worry about anyone except the Fox News crowd. Until this happens, I’ll remain skeptical of the exact conclusions of climate science. Especially around the true uncertainty in our understanding about past climate and future projections.
grace the collie
Sorry Will I was still laughing at http://di2.nu/foia/HARRY_READ_ME-30.html and I came across your blog you lost me when you said “is alight with what David Cameron’s old University friend James Delingpole hysterically asserts” it’s always tribal with you lot. This will be spun in to “fake but accurate”
David Jones
grace the collie,
Can you see the irony in accusing others of being ‘always tribal’ and then immediately referring to them as ‘you lot’?