Saudia Arabia’s announcement that the CRU email hack will have a "huge impact" on the Copenhagen summit is unsurprising. But it doesn't change the science.
Saudia Arabia’s announcement that the CRU email hack will have a “huge impact” on the Copenhagen summit is unsurprising but deeply unsavoury.
Al-Sabban, the Saudis’ lead spokesman on this, is now saying:
“It appears from the details of the scandal that there is no relationship whatsoever between human activity and climate change”.
But let’s remind ourselves of the long and deep history of Saudi Arabia’s support for the denial of man-made climate change; the concrete actions that they have taken to prevent timely action; and their pitiful failure to take any action themselves over the greatest of all threats to our species and our living world.
Climate-deniers don’t like to focus on the role of the likes of Saudi Arabia and Exxon in backing them up. They prefer to talk about things like the minutiae of the programmer’s code used in working on the CRU data. For example, on last night’s Newsnight (11’45”) in which the new ‘Harry’ programmer’s code controversy is presented.
As has been shown expertly here and here, there is no smoking gun at all; just a vague suggestion that the way that the CRU data has been worked with has not been as flawless as the way that NASA’s has been. For more, watch this video:
Does this cast any doubt at all on their fundamental findings, or suggest any kind of conspiracy? The answer is simple: No.
The bottom line is this: There are many people out there, some of them just wilful contrarians, some of them directly profiting from the continuation of the fossil-fuel-economy, who are desperate to do whatever they can to try to hold off the moment when they have to change. CRU is one of the messengers saying that change in the way we live is necessary, if manmade climate change is not to overwhelm us. At the end of the day, the mad furore around this hack is simply a new case of a very old phenomenon: shooting the messenger.
33 Responses to “Shooting CRU, the climate change messenger”
Rupert Read
Question: Are people always ‘entitled to their opinion’?
Answer: NO. Not if that opinion is based on wilful ignorance.
You are only entitled to your opinion, if that opinion is based on an effort to think straight and not to deceive yourself or others.
Anon E Mouse
Rupert Read – One mans ignorance is another mans salvation.
Richard Dawkins, the renowned atheist, would say that the Pope in Rome is ignorant because of his belief in God.
The Pope in Rome would say Richard Dawkins is ignorant because of his lack of belief in God.
(I only use these examples to illustrate a point not start a debate on religion)
The answer to your own question: “NO people are not entitled to their own opinion” shows exactly why your view on (man made CO2 driven) climate change is the minority held opinion in this country.
If the science was set you would have a point. It is not set. The CRU and IPCC have blocked articles which contradict their opinion on the matter instead of debating, using science to prove their case.
Caroline Lucas, seemingly not sharing your control freak tendencies, agreed, quite correctly, that for over a decade the planet is cooling.
The long term trend she said is upwards but based on what data over what length of time? That would be a scientific response – an unambiguous reply to this.
Firstly define “long term” and do not go back to the industrial revolution please – we need data before the burning of fossil fuels to show a difference.
Secondly produce the original data the CRU used prior to show warming. Raw and unmodified data please – the way normal science works.
Oh you can’t do that because the CRU destroyed it. They should be arrested for that kind of behaviour…
Lynda Edwards
Anon E Mouse – when did Caroline Lucas say the planet was cooling? Certainly not in last Sunday’s Andrew Marr programme which I watched carefully on BBCi after reading your post of December 4 at 9.46 pm. I posted above a repeat of what was actually said in response to Andrew Marr’s question about the subject of there being no appreciable global warming. There was no mention by anyone on that programme to say the planet is cooling! Our local papers today are full of the fact there has been climate change; if you don’t believe it just ask anyone involved in helping the poor countries in, say, Africa.
Some parts of Australia are suffering excessive heat at the moment – is that global cooling? No.
Anon E Mouse
Lynda – I have never said the planet’s climate isn’t changing. I have also never said that it isn’t due to man made influences.
My point is that all these Climate Cooling Deniers immediately start to claim that the planet is getting warmer, even when the facts (not opinion) show otherwise.
Caroline Lucas knows full well that bending the statistics to suit here case eg Overall trends, long term statistics etc blah blah is just bogus science.
She knows the planet is getting colder – everyone does – that’s why she never challenged Marr on it when he (politely) used the word appreciable – he meant cooling. Remember the planet always changes in temperature:
1882 – 1910 Cooling
1910 – 1944 Warming
1944 – 1975 Cooling
1975 – 2001 Warming
2001 – present is cooling again, it’s the way they altered the method of measuring temperatures in 2003.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8299079.stm
That’s why the decription went from Global Cooling in the 70’s to Global Warming and now (since the planet is getting colder again) Climate change. They just keep changing the term to suit the situation and that is wrong, bad science.
What I have said is that there is no evidence to prove it conclusively and although I believe we should recycle, have renewable energy and Nuclear power and stop pollution I just wish people would quote the facts and not what they would like to be true.
My occupation involves (partly) designing energy saving equipment, I recycle, compost and have and always have done – I don’t need some jumped up little prat like Ed Miliband forcing me to do it – I do it because it is the right thing to do.
I personally *hate* the fact orangutans are being killed and orphaned so selfish misguided people in the developed world can feel good about continuing to drive gas guzzling cars while the rain forest is destroyed for palm oil bio fuels. It’s wrong…
Rupert Read
You don’t have ‘a right to your opinion’ if that opinion expresses wilfull prejudice or self-deception. We don’t think that anti-semites or sexist prigs have ‘a right to their opinion’ – and quite right too.
For full argumentation to this conclusion, see Jamie Whyte’s useful book, Bad Thoughts.