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”
Anon E Mouse
Rupert Read – I have a right to any opinion that does not incite others to acts that are considered unlawful.
Opinion polls show that your opinion is in the minority. Therefore it is your opinion that displays both wilful prejudice and self deception.
You may disagree with what I say but only a Stalinist would close down debate like you want to.
It is shameful behavior Rupert Read and since you offer advise on literature I should read why don’t you try anything by the French philosopher Voltaire.
He said: “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it”.
Your control freak narrow minded views means you are blind to the truth. Everyone knows the earth is cooling, why don’t you answer that fact Rupert?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8299079.stm
Epping Forest Greens
Rupert Read on the climate-change data "scandal": http://bit.ly/6525Aj
Shamik Das
Anon, throwing about words like Stalinist is both offensive and unhelpful.
Liberal Conspiracy » Copenhagen does not go far enough
[…] emails cast any substantive doubt over the facts and the science of global over-heat (see this and this), nevertheless we can (ironically) be grateful to the deluded hacker if his/her actions undermine […]
Anon E Mouse
Hi Shamik – Rupert Read said: You don’t have ‘a right to your opinion’ if that opinion expresses wilfull prejudice or self-deception.
This morning on the Today Program a Climate Change scientist said that 46% of the UK population believed in man made global warming…
…I’m in the majority here, in the 54% in not knowing if it does or not so Rupert Reads comment therefore has no validity regarding prejudice.
Since he holds the minority opinion, yet is still prepared to tell me I have no right to my majority opinion, how am I expected to respond?
What’s great about LFF is the fact open and often dissenting opinions are allowed in healthy debate. On another section of this blog Rupert Read “Condemned me to the dustbin of history” amongst other such remarks in one of his numerous rants. I find that offensive but didn’t complain.
I just couldn’t think of a better description of his behavior than “Stalinist” but since I don’t want to cause offence I withdraw it and use the adjective “oppressive” instead.
Sorry Shamik.