The Upside to Climategate
The most immediate one is the vigorous debate Climategate has engendered between individuals of all political, ideological, and scientific stripes. Judith Curry from the Georgia Institute of Technology deserves much of the credit for kickstarting this, first in speaking directly to Steven McIntyre’s audience at Climate Audit, and then shortly after that with another essay posted over at Climate Progress.
Following this, Andy Revkin at Dot Earth generated a lively exhange by also highlighting Curry, as well as Mike Hulme, another distinguished climate scientist. Unlike the majority of their peers, Curry and Hulme have not downplayed the significance of the CRU email controversy. On this note, I’m disappointed that William Connolley has failed to use his influential corner of the climate blogosphere to foster a healthy discussion of the salient issues, be it the integrity of the peer review process, FOIA evasion, CRU data storage, or the “tribalism” that Curry notes. Connolley appears to be taking a nothing to see here, move along attitude.
That seems to be the position taken by many environmental and science journalists as well. (Notable exceptions include George Monbiot and Tom Yulsman.) Incredibly, nobody at Columbia University’s The Observatory has yet commented on Climategate. The journalism site’s motto is: “A lens on the science press.” I guess their “lens” has found nothing noteworthy (or lacking) about the media coverage thus far.
More typical are the shrugs exhibited by Kevin Drum (“As near as I can tell, ClimateGate is almost entirely a tempest in a teacup”) and David Roberts, who can’t be bothered to see what all the fuss is about:
I haven’t read the emails. I’ll leave it to others to determine whether a few scientists or a few papers deserve a newly critical eye.
Contrast this willful ignorance with Megan McArdle’s serious grappling of the affair. After exploring the most serious charges (some of which, McArdle acknowledges, merit further investigation), she concludes:
I see an indirect problem, which is that these scientists allowed themselves to become politicized and hostile to outsiders in a way that may have compromised the quality of their work.
As near as I can tell, liberal pundits like Drum and important voices like Connelley and Roberts are wearing blinders, while press watchdogs like The Observatory have gone MIA on the biggest global warming story of the year.
As for a larger upside to the scandal, Will Wilkinson provides a good guess here:
I predict that the overall response from the scientific community will be healthy and invigorating. Climate science will become more transparent and more rigorously by-the-book because climate scientists are becoming more fully aware that the impulse to jealously protect a public perception of consensus can undermine itself by producing questionable science and a justifiably skeptical public.
Well, if that happens, it won’t be because of the role played by liberal journalists or (with the notable execption of Revkin and a few others), the science media.
UPDATE 1: Mike Hulme has an absolute must-read op-ed in WSJ Europe.
UPDATE 2: Bud Ward wrote a prescient post on the then emerging controversy on November 22, in which he said:
Take those who see this event as the end of days when it comes to anthropogenic climate change with a huge grain of salt. And take those dismissing it as much ado about nothing with an equal dose.
UPDATE 3: Curtis Brainard at The Observatory has posted a lengthy article analyzing coverage of Climategate.
It’s a shame to see that the Fascist of Wikipedia William Connolley is still being taken seriously.
No name calling, please.
I have read Steve McIntyre’s blog for 6 years. It has taken on the air of a mystery novel where we were invited to guess what’s going on. The 170 MB of files tell us what was going on and we guessed right! We know the context they were written in and knowing the context makes them all the more damning. The mainstream media discredits itself further when they dismiss it at the same time they show they haven’t read them. This includes Andy Revkin. An exception? the great article in the NYT by John Tierney–kudos to him!
Speaking the editorial comment, the first strip in the selection posted here:
http://web.mac.com/louiedeviceful/louiedeviceful/Blunt_by_Knutz.html
McArdle is an idiot, and she proves it beyond a doubt <a href=”http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/12/climategate_iii_the_mystery_of.php”>here</a> when she claims that the supposed unreliability of dendrochronology means that “we don’t have any proxy for global temperature over most of the globe that goes back more than a few hundred years.”
In the main post, it doesn’t occur to her that there might be a difference between the British and American FOI laws, noting that section II.42 of the British one provides an “absolute” exemption for confidential communications. But heck, if I, a mere non-blogging non-journalist, could find that out, why not the “world’s tallest female econoblogger [who] delivers her opinions on economics, business, and other moral hazards”? (Er, ou est le science?)
The rest of her stuff is similarly crap, as is the rest of your post, Keith. The photocopier “thinking” you exhibited here is exactly the sort that was responsible for the journalistic failure that led up to the Iraq War. Fortunately much of the rest of the herd has had the sense to avoid it, at least so far.
Hot link for prior comment.
Bernie Madoff’s fraud is a trifle by comparison. Bernie fleeced a small group of well healed investors, the global warming cabal is seeking to transfer trillions of dollars from the United States using the fiction of global warming as an excuse. Somebody needs to go to jail.
Fortunately Keith’s natural superiors seem to have their heads screwed on straight.
I can only agree with Bud’s prediction that lazy journalists will continue to resort to the fallacy of the middle. Re Mike Hulme, his agonizing has become tedious.
Oh, still no link to that Nature editorial, Keith? 🙂
[…] of story? Not quite, as I’ve suggested here and here. More specifically, we don’t know the who (stole the emails), why, and how. So far, press […]
Connolly is restrained by friendship and affection for some of those involved. His posts so far have been a peek into the tent of one tribe, but I doubt he’ll directly confront the real issues.
Vigorous debate
I don’t see any real debate. The discussion going on isn’t in anyway related to the realities of climate change. Let me list the things that are not being discussed.
There is a natural greenhouse effect. Without it the surface temperature would be roughly 33 C colder.
Trace gases are an important part of this natural greenhouse effect.
Humans have made a sizeable increase in the concentration of several of these important trace gases such as C02, methane, CFCs and more.
This human increase has and will increase the greenhouse effect, and thus warm the surface.
A little bit warmer will have both gains and losses. Warmer will be mostly bad. Warm enough will be very bad.
No magic that is going to save us. No magic iris, for if there was, how could there have been ice ages? No magic energy technology is likely to pop out of a hat.
So where does this leave us? It is technically possible for a mixture of known non-carbon energy sources (nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal) to replace most of the fossil fuel energy. This will be require eventually as the supply of fossil fuels is limited. Right now, this is politically impossible. Care to talk about why?
So where is the real debate? I don’t see any.
The momentum is with us now. We must organize and press the issue.
Who were the perpetrators of this fraud? From the lowliest, arrogant “scientist” at Penn State, right up to the White House, and the denizens of mansions in BelAire.
Metaphorically speaking, heads will roll.
Al Gore and his minions have jetted around the world, plotting how to destroy our economy and way of life, all the while demanding that we peons ride the bus or subway, and turn our thermostats down to 60.
Their “let them eat cake” attitudes are eerily similar to previous elites. The communist elites enjoyed the same privileges and mouthed the same type of platitudes. Where are they now?
No Consensus–No Warming (NOC-NOW)–Stop the Scam–Halt the IPCC
We have a quickly growing Yahoo Group (CO2 is Plant Food), and a petition (NOC-NOW) that simply spells out a Declaration of Climate Independence.
We also have a Facebook Group: No Consensus–No Warming (NOC-NOW)–Stop the AGW Scam.
The petition will be provided to the US Congress, the White House, the UN, the IPCC, the EU Commission, and other representative bodies involved in “Climate Change” policy deliberations.
We will be heard.
Please join the group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/co2isplantfood
And sign the petition: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/NOC_NOW/
Join Facebook group: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=191580771509
We can stop this scam, together.
Kent Clizbe
NOC-NOW
Stop the Scam””Halt the IPCC
No Consensus””No Warming
Re #13: Climate teabagging — perfect! I understand Orly Taitz may be available for a leadership role.