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.
31 Responses to “Climatic Research Unit data is valid – don’t let the sceptics tell you otherwise”
Tim Worstall
Talk about missing the point. The unknown part of climate change is what is climate sensitivity.
We know what a doubling in the atmosphere will do directly: 0.7oC rise (yes, really). What we don’t know is how the sum of secondary effects (positive and negative feedbacks) works out. If climate sensitivity is, say, 2oC, then we’ve not much of a problem. If it’s 6 oC then we’re in shit street.
What CRU is supposed to be working out is what is climate sensitivity. It’s the most important result we want. And if they’ve been hiding raw data, indulging in a lot of hand waving and in general pushing a line rather than doing their job, research, then we’ve all got really rather a large problem.
Anon E Mouse
Tim – My point is not the temperature, increase or otherwise – my issue is with the reasons for it. Leave aside the bogus data being pedaled by the CRU there is NO EVIDENCE, bogus or otherwise that (man made) CO2 causes global warming.
Evidence biased
I have to say; when George Monbiot says it looks bad, it’s got to be pretty damning. He’s calling for Phil Jones’ resignation and a re-evaluation of the evidence referred to in the emails. As for his assertion that the timing of this hack/leak with Copenhagen isn’t a coincidence, I’m sure he’s just being cynical. It obviously is, just like CRU’s discovery last week that temperatures will rise by 6oC by 2100.
Can I also suggest that, for an evidence-based blog, a link to the leaked/stolen material might be more appropriate than a link to a Guardian story?
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php
Rupert Read
For the latest on this, goto; http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/rupert-read/real-scandal-in-hacked-climate-change-e-mails-controversy . [See also #cru on twitter]
Anon E Mouse
Rupert – The real scandal is the fact the software is bogus so the evidence is incorrect and even though you know that to be true you persist to pedal this unproven myth.
George Monbiot in the Guardian seems more skeptical now than you are and since you hold public office as a councilor for the Green Party I find it very concerning that you seem not to be interested in this matter that affects our lives. You continually repeat the same (now) unproven stuff.
Monbiot seems angry about this I wonder why it doesn’t bother you. Your site says you: “specialise(s) increasingly in political and environmental philosophy”.
What philosophy includes denial of data when presented with it? Worrying.