If you've no account register here first time
User Name :
User Email :
Password :

Login Now

Climategate: Environmentalists versus climate-change deniers

emissions5There are two sides to every story as evidenced by the various opinions across the Web about the recent release of hacked emails and documents from the top climate research organization in the UK.

Some say the documents were released to discredit climate researchers and don’t disprove global warming while others say it proves that global warming was exaggerated by a handful of climate scientists. However, the heated debate has taken an ugly turn, resulting in name-calling by both parties.

Here are some of their opinions.

A few climatologists at the center of the climate scandal, now called Climategate by many in the media, believe the documents don’t undermine the underlying science of the research, and the private emails — some using colloquialisms between colleagues or written in the heat of the moment — were misinterpreted or taken out of context, reports the Wall Street Journal. But according to the opinion piece, the researchers are ignoring the damage they’ve done to public confidence of climate science.

The WSJ blogger says the issue is not about colloquialisms or about the tone of the documents but rather how the scientific consensus on global warming was reached and how it’s being enforced. The impression is that the research was rigged from the start, and the public has the right to ask why they needed to rig their data if it is as indisputable as claimed, according to the article.

The fallout from the leaked emails could also damage President Obama’s hope of cap-and-trade legislation, which is being supported by Fox News’ reporting on the story with the “juiciest quotes” and calling the emails a “game changer”, reports a Telegraph blog.

In addition, climate skeptic Senator James Inhofe’s Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has notified all the relevant U.S. government agencies about the content of the leaked emails, according to the Telegraph.

The Telegraph blogger went so far as to call the researchers “liars” and “petty tyrants” and that there may be criminal prosecution for those who falsified data to secure funds.

On the flip side, a Guardian blog reports that many environmentalists and scientists have gone into denial stating the material has been exaggerated, but says now isn’t the time to pretend it’s not big deal or to justify the damaging emails based on technicalities.

One of the most damaging emails was sent by the head of the climatic research unit, Phil Jones, which supports the claims of climate-change deniers that the IPCC process is biased, reports the Guardian.

The Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia knew of the security breach three days before the story broke but released no statement nor had a spokesperson to respond to the breach, allowing opponents or what the blogger called “scumbags” to take swipes at CRU scientists.

Despite many years of fabrication, fraud and deceit on the part of the climate change denial industry, which the Guardian blog called 100 times worse than anything in the hacked emails, climate scientists now look bad. But still, it doesn’t justify their secrecy and suppression of data on the part of climate scientists, according to the article.

Three leadings scientists called the hacked emails a smear campaign aimed at sabotaging climate talks in Copenhagen at a recent press conference call, reports Reuters.

Instead of discussing their new report, the Copenhagen Diagnosis, an update of the UN IPCC’s 2007 climate data, they spent most of their time discussing the hacked emails, according to Reuters.

Still, the report findings, based on 200 peer-reviewed papers, reveal that global warming emissions in 2008 were nearly 40 percent higher than those in 1990 and sea level rise is 80 percent above past IPCC predictions, reports Reuters. The report indicates that to avoid a 2-degree C warming fossil fuel emissions must peak between 2015 and 2020 then decline rapidly, according to the article.

Though some of the emails just reveal some grumblings about a research paper, other emails, such as the one that suggests Jones and his colleagues should delete emails unless they get into the hands of climate-change deniers and or another email that calls for blocking a research paper questioning global warming, are more difficult to explain, reports the New Zealand Herald.

Is Energy-From-Waste Worse Than Coal?
Sponsored By: Covanta Environmental Solutions

Real-Time Data as a Foundation to Drive Sustainability Performance
Sponsored By: Sphera Solutions

Staying Ahead of the Curve: Strategies for Managing Emerging Regulations (NAEM)
Sponsored By: VelocityEHS

Environmental Leader Product & Project Awards 2018
Sponsored By: Environmental Leader


21 thoughts on “Climategate: Environmentalists versus climate-change deniers

  1. Personally, I find the choosing of words for the article title highly questionable.

    CRU team has suppressed not only those who denied any climate change, but anybody who considered that human impact on climate change is not substantial enough (in Jones’ and others’ eyes).

    It would be stupid to say that climate is not changing. It is changing and it always had. What effects human activity has on this process, however, should be the subject of an impartial scientific debate. Something that CRU team has been trying to prevent all this time.

    Trying to present this situation as if the only CRU’s opponents are “deniers” (with all obvious connotations for this word) is just a primitive lie.

  2. “The heated debate has taken an ugly turn, resulting in name-calling by both parties.”

    For example, the author in the very title of the article calls one side “Environmentalists” (something that seems really good) and the other “Climate Change Deniers” (something that seems impossible).

    This is slander. And this isn’t “a few scientists” – this is the WHITE HOUSE CLIMATE CZAR at the heart of it. This is the greatest scandal in the history of science, and spineless authors who tried to be apologists will be one day held accountable for their support of this fraud.

  3. Amazing!

    The data are in the faces of Man-Made Climate Change supporters and they still refuse to acknowledge the evidence.

    These same scientists threatened my job with the US Geological Survey when trying to publish a study showing with higher confidence that global temperature changes were natural and caused solely by Earth’s physical processes. Additionally, these same scientists would not discuss or refute the science and facts presented. Instead, they took two days to personally insult and attack me.

    I always knew that when man-made global climate change was shown as insignificant that people would lose faith, note the word “FAITH”, in science. But this event and exposure is by far worse for the science community; but “Truth is the daughter of Time (Francis Bacon)”.

    Several USGS scientists got fired for the same thing when discussing data manipulation for models developed for the Nevada Nuclear Test Site. But no outcry and defense for those scientists?

    IF you see no problem with this and not wondering if the public has been misled by these scientists, then you are not scientists, you’re in denial, and you stand for no moral principles.

    On 25 November 2009 at 12:15 PM, I tried to post comments on RealClimate.org concerning this matter. That website refused the posts because they know me; another attempt to silence objective parties and since they were the ones that threatened my job…..

    Now, Al Gore PUBLICLY states Mantle temperatures are MILLIONS of DEGREES. The man doesn’t have the morality, decency, and/or courage to publicly admit he was WRONG. SO WHY SHOULD these scientists admit they are wrong? They can’t, because if they do, the gig is up.

    The phenomenon I discuss in my research has been studied for nearly 50 years and accepted as highly plausible by the Royal Society (I have the Publication) but the process and connection were unexplainable; the only drawback of all Magnetic Intensity and Ambient Temperature studies, in their WORDS; till now. We explained the Process in our paper along with the data analysis. Unfortunately, we used the Hadley Global Temperature Datasets. The data used were yearly averages, which was well explained both in the original paper and the 2008 AGU presentation. Just didn’t see any RealClimate people at the presentation. But they knew about it. I informed them.
    The following is what I perceived as personal intimidation and a threat to call my USGS supervisor for doing this study. The only reason someone uses words like “Does your boss know what your doing” in the context of this event is a threat to get you FIRED if you don’t cease and desists. Now if the study and theory were not plausible and a potential explanation of global temperature variability, then why would RealClimate.org do what they did in their posts? Not very professional for PhDs. Additionally, there are many other areas on that website where conversations took place.
    John Mashey says:
    30 June 2007 at 1:04 AM
    re: #261: Chuck: you can stop worrying. Tindall has been at USGS for while,……………………………………..
    Mr. Moran, if you’re still watching:
    I have read USGS 370.735.5 and I hope you (and James Tindall) have.
    Do managers SAF and LE HB know about this? Any constructive comments?”
    From: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/200

  4. WTF, why are you calling this Climategate? By calling it that it supports the skeptics argument. Why not call it hackergate, East Angliagate or CRUgate? EL, that is weak on your part.

  5. The individuals responsible for programming the satelights that photograph the polar ice sheets thought they understood something about ice reflectivity and how it related to the age of the ice.

    Now they find after people actually went to where the older ice should have been and found rotten ice.


    Now do we call the scientists hoaxsters?
    What they thought turned out to be wrong.

    So should we run around and claim that they colluded to try and convince the world that there was significant multi-year ice still at the North Pole, when in fact it is almost completely gone?

    Shall we look to throw them in jail since their miscalculation led many to believe the ice was returning at the pole since 2007, and in fact the ice may actually be gone in less than five years at mid-summer?

    Science always gets it wrong at first. If you try and say a scientist is a hoaxster, well then you simply don’t have the mental capacity to understand how the scientific process works.

    And that’s ok.

    We need people to stay focused on the Sunday NFL and the tailgating mentality, we just need to swap their cars for bikes, beer for wine, burgers for corn on the cobb, and they will never know they are solving the problems they are too stupid to understand.

  6. The worst has yet to be discovered by the forces opposing environmentalism.

    I had hoped the science is settled. The scientists have no idea where the heat has gone and Trenberth states categorically that we cannot balance the energy budget.

    Lessons for us all here – do not place too much reliance on any one group. They have let us all down.

  7. The purloined emails underscore the need for the United States to convene our own objective, transparent Climate Truth Commission.

    The Climate Research Unit’s emails show small-minded, embattled thinking that reeks of zealotry, not science. It appears the researchers weren’t beyond drawing conclusions that were relatively unsupported. Two of the authors, Phil Jones and Kevin Trenberth, were the lead authors of one of the most important chapters in the United Nations Fourth Assessment Report. This is no small matter since the EPA, in its recent move to boost regulation of greenhouse gases, based its conclusions on the UN reports.

    – Robert Moen, http://www.energyplanUSA.com

  8. The melting arctic ice matches up with the expected solar melting cycle, the last one ending around 1932.
    It was not related to CO2 then and since it is on schedule along with the expected solar activity, very unlikely to be related to CO2 now.

  9. Cannot understand why research on climate change cannot deal with transparency. They should be held answerable to biased scientific reporting. As a tax payer, I do believe that it is the least the they owe us – accurate reporting of scientific facts. I fail to understand how UN can even dare to discuss “global warming” at the conference in Copenhagen. Especially, since most of the rest of the world has real and pressing problems to solve. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574562123968802420.html)

  10. Follow the money…if climate change is a hoax, then we don’t have to worry, we can drive our SUV’s without worry, and we can be content as we watch America’s Next Idol…or whatever the show is call. The oil industry does not want us to change…they lose their jobs. The status quo is the best thing for the majority of people, unfortunately it may be wrong this time. So one question, why is the perma-frost melting in the north? Perma was used as a prefix for a reason.
    Interesting how “leaked” emails are taken as verifiable truth…but when someone actually speaks openly, he’s lying. I received an email today that said I won $10Million, I guess I should go collect since it must be true, it’s an email after all!
    Let’s collectively stop trusting the system and collectively start to THINK. But you need to turn OFF the TV to make this “thinking thing” effective.

  11. I can’t say it any better that “jtom” post on USA Today…

    “If anyone still believes ‘faithfully’ in AGW, please repeat this mantra:

    “Almost all of the knowledge I have concerning the temperature warm-up of the last twenty years is from research derived from data originated by scientists at CRU who have questionable ethics, possibly tampered with data, and have hopelessly fouled-up databases and programming; research ‘consistent with’ AGW is also consistent with natural GW and proves neither; and research based on the assumption of AGW, which leads to correct results does not constitute proof of that assumption. Moreover, the fact that I have read far more peer-reviewed research suggesting AGW than the non-existence of AGW is likely due to their clear manipulation of the peer-review process. My understanding of the subject, and therefore my conclusions and beliefs, have been deliberately manipulated.”

    If you disagree with the above, read it again until you understand it.”

  12. You write: “Instead of discussing their new report, the Copenhagen Diagnosis, an update of the UN IPCC’s 2007 climate data, they spent most of their time discussing the hacked emails, according to Reuters.

    Still, the report findings, based on 200 peer-reviewed papers, reveal that global warming emissions in 2008 were nearly 40 percent higher than those in 1990 and sea level rise is 80 percent above past IPCC predictions, reports Reuters.”

    Ahem, this would not be the same scientists who apparently colluded to divert the peer-review process and blackball sceptics?

  13. The hacked emails of climategate are not necessary to show that global warming has stopped and human caused global warming never was.

    The Argo float data shows that global warming stopped abruptly in about 2004 (graph on pp4 of http://www.oceanobs09.net/plenary/files/Wijffels_HeatContentTemperature_2Aa_vfinal.pdf )

    That AGW never was is shown on a graph that shows predicted and measured temperatures since 1895. It and the associated research are presented in the October 14 pdf at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true . The pdf provides the model that accurately predicts all average global temperatures since 1895 with no consideration whatsoever needed of changes to the level of CO2 or any other ghg.

  14. “Despite many years of fabrication, fraud and deceit on the part of the climate change denial industry, which the Guardian blog called 100 times worse than anything in the hacked emails, climate scientists now look bad. But still, it doesn’t justify their secrecy and suppression of data on the part of climate scientists, according to the article.”

    How strange. The evidence clearly show that it was the IPCC and the AGW proponents that committed fraud yet you attack the sceptics, who turned out to be right.

    Nothing in the e-mails is new. Dr. Wegman (not a sceptic) pointed out to the credibility problems when he reviewed the M&M complaint against Mann, Bradley, and Hughes, who created the famous ‘Hockey Stick’ by using inappropriate data and wrong statistical methods. When Wegman concluded that by using the proper methods the hockey stick disappeared the media spun the story into a victory for the AGW side. The reason why this fraud occurred was because the media fell asleep and ignored that there was never any empirical data presented that could remotely show that CO2 was a major driver of temperature trends and ignored the fact that most of the warmers’ papers did not meet the journals’ data disclosure policies.

    I think that if the mainstream media wants to restore some of the credibility it once had, it needs to treat this story seriously and to dig into it fully rather than ignore the truth until it is too late. It is exactly this story that shows why the old media is failing and shedding jobs at such a high rate. The establishment is not adjusting quickly enough and seems to care more about looking bad by admitting errors than it cares abut the truth.

  15. All of you, read this from the above article:

    “Still, the report findings, based on 200 peer-reviewed papers, reveal that global warming emissions in 2008 were nearly 40 percent higher than those in 1990 and sea level rise is 80 percent above past IPCC predictions…”

    GHG emissions ARE increasing and climate change IS happening. That quotation does not reference model predictions, it references what is ALREADY HAPPENING and being MEASURED.

    Should scientists be manipulating the journal publication process? No, obviously not. However, given the degree to which cliamte change deniers have historically twisted and otherwise blown out of proportion legitimate scientific inquiry and debate, I can understand why these scientists thought they needed to keep parts of the debate out of the public view. Again, not a good decision, but good to keep in mind as everyone reacts.

  16. Deniers ?? People who use this term are showing they just don’t understand the scientific arguments put forward by the climate realists.

    Like Al Gore, who refuses to debate any of the climate scientists that have challenged him to debate.

    The truth is most deniers are well educated regarding the hundreds of previous “global warmings” and “global coolings” on our planet.

    I find it is the carbon tax enthusiasts are generally not well educated regarding basic climate history.

    Feel free to click my name above, and brush up on basic climate science, regardless of where you stand on “global warming.”

    Dr. Goldstein

  17. Some folks from my neck of the woods have made Climate Change the focus and primary justification for environmental action. Whatever happened to environmental stewardship, pre-baby boomers knew all about this – probably didn’t call it that though. My thoughts aren’t new to any diehard environmentalist, I think I’m more going after the Marketing locusts that look for the next hot topic and absolutely milk it for every last drop of credibility until the very sound of it reminds you of a pair of MC Hammer pants. Comes down to figuring out what drives you towards making the right choices. If Climate Change doesn’t work for you, then don’t get hung up on it. I can give you a thousand other reasons that may seem a bit more down to earth. twitter.com/amcana_enviro

  18. ITS all a fraud myou lot have been busted ,and even common sense tells you its lies ,next youwill be telling us the ice will melt when its minus 50 ,or that the climate never changed in 4 billion yrs without us even here ,get a life say and pay for this the biggest fraud in history even the peer review was rigged by their own words ,it a discrace and criminal charges shoul apply to all the scammers including gore.see eu agenda 21 on u tube ,thats the real horror these communists are after ,

Leave a Comment

Translate »