Morning:
3°c
Rule of modern life: never annoy a climate change apostle. They don't take kindly to it and get ratty, because they are not used to it.
Now and again, if you hold a strong belief, it is quite normal for something to come along that shakes the foundations of what you think.
It is part of life and very much part of science. Indeed, the entire rational scientific method is based on a readiness to review and correct errors, large or small, and to accept challenges to what is already known.
It is what makes it so valuable. In the global warming debate, it is all we have to rely on. The rest is, you might say, just hot air.
That is why the likes of Professor Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, boasting in leaked emails of using "Mike's Nature trick. To hide the decline" (in recent recorded temperatures), were playing such a foolish game.
That, plus an aversion to openness and the dismissive reaction to scepticism about their claims, must be taken seriously.
Yet the response has been an evasive flippancy, with renowned eco-writers parodying the affair, or merely saying both sides in the global warming argument are prone to distortion and exaggeration.
But hang on: these are people who use the scientific method to make the case that climate change is so important that countries (and individuals) should be prepared to make major sacrifices to move to a low-carbon economy.
They want their work to lead to change. That brings with it a special duty not to resort to shortcuts - however trivial.
Professor Jones was not using the language of sober science but the self-congratulation of the believer who thinks a fast one can be pulled or a corner cut in order to further his own case.
Professor Bob Watson, a Defra adviser on the issue and fellow UEA scientist, explained (sort of) on Newsnight: "They used the word 'trick' as an expression of mathematical approach ... clearly they need to think through how to express the English language much clearer." I'll say. It doesn't address the broader point, though, which is about mentality and impression of a general group-think.
Some of the mails have the tone and assumption of people who do not relish challenge and treat critical scrutiny as something annoying.
They were apparently in favour of deleting departmental emails rather than succumb to the glare of others probing into the department under the Freedom of Information Act.
The institute is invariably referred to as "respected" in newspapers, though at this rate, it won't be for much longer.
Professor Watson's prime concern is "how the computer was hacked into".
How awfully like listening to stodgy Whitehall officials taking umbrage at requests to see controversial memos, or MPs complaining about the discs of their expenses being sold.
Public interest lies in knowing what is being quietly said on the inside - not in punishing those who brought it to light.
For a layman to come to a view on the exact degree of global warming, its causes and what needs to be done to remedy it is notoriously difficult.
We can apply common sense but we ultimately fall back on a faith in the evidence that others gather and assess for us.
That entails a relationship of trust between scientists and the public that should not be so lightly squandered.
While I was sitting in the Iraq inquiry this week, the example of the Blair government's treatment of the WMD evidence in 2003 came to mind.
Nothing I have seen since convinces me that the Government did not have reasonable grounds for thinking Saddam still had WMD.
But the evidence base was nowhere near wide enough for the weight put on it for political reasons. When that emerged, Mr Blair's credibility on the matter was smashed for good.
That is a warning from history. I squirmed when reading a researcher describe as a "travesty" that he can't prove the temperature rise he wants to confirm: the fact that he wants a certain result should make him more cautious.
Those who want radical action at the Copenhagen summit on climate change can argue with justification that they are trying to do us all a favour by highlighting the clear and present danger of global warming and demanding measures to address it.
If you subtract those Greens who are basically a reincarnation of Left-wing anti-capitalists and those who are hostile to the very idea of economic growth, you're left with a considerable body of informed evidence that says climate change should be a priority for this generation.
Some scientists aligned to this view are absolutely scrupulous in their methods, and others are plainly campaigners first and scientists second (and indeed probably chose to be researchers in this field on grounds of conviction). The UEA case risks blurring that vital line.
The public has learned to distrust experts - in an era when we know more than our trusting forebears, we've seen forensic scientists and doctors squirm under the revelation that their treasured evidence was flawed and the results misleading.
"Don't you think it's scary," a minister said to me yesterday, "that 55 per cent of people don't believe global warming is man-made?"
Well, no, I don't. It is the job of those who know more about it to convince us with rigour and argument that their assessment is correct and should be the basis of what we do - and stop doing.
The whole rhetoric of calling the unconvinced "deniers", the resort to the language of a "trick" and "travesty" is part of a sloppy intellectual culture which will, in the end, undermine the very achievements of genuine climate science and its influence.
Because I am not a member of the Doubter's Church of Lord Lawson, the refusal to treat global warming as a major issue seems to me an unwise risk to take with all our futures.
But if the scientists and their uncritical supporters can't see that they have only themselves to blame for increasing doubt and distrust, perhaps they're not so clever after all.
Reader views (19)
Nice article. The CRU UEA debacle simply points out that the scientific arguments for Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW)are not so strong that the scientists feel they can provide us all with free access to the data. Having followed the arguments for the last for years I remain astounded at the confirmation biases of many pro-CAGWers. For example, floods = CAGW, hurricanes = CAGW, ablation of tropical ice fields = CAGW, pine beetle infestations = CAGW, early spring = CAGW. The scientific method when practiced in full minimizes confirmation bias. What is on view in the CRU emails clearly indicates what happens when scientists become advocates.
What also always amazes me is the baggage that is brought along on this issue. As is reflected in the above comments, CAGW is essentially inseparable from urgings for population control frequently along the lines of those currently in place in China and a absolute naivete with respect to renewable energy sources.
One commentator hit the nail of the head. I would like to hear some strong pro-nuclear statements from those fearful of CAGW. I would also like to hear calls for a strong immigration policy that would curtail the flow of individuals from developing countries, especially the brightest and most energetic.
- Bernie, Boston, USA
"the refusal to treat global warming as a major issue seems to me an unwise risk to take with all our futures"
So you could be persuaded to insure your house against the risk of a Godzilla attack? If enough people repeat it often enough.
Never lose sight of the evidence. And there is no more evidence of an impending MMGW calamity than there is of that Godzilla attack.
How do I know? The scientists set out a detailed prediction which became known as "the big red spot". MMGW would be most evident in the upper atmosphere in the tropical region. It was not confirmed by observation! That's about as close as you can get to being disproven in observational science.
And please don't listen to claims that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is based on physics alone. In truth it relies on a proposition that temperature change will be "amplified" by "positive feedback". Now that would be like climbing into a basket and using the handle to lift yourself off the ground - you can get it to work in a computer simulation - but you'll never see it happen in th real world.
- Jordan, UK
A well thought through article from someone who considers AGW could be a problem and doesn't resort to insultsto people who do not share her view.
The main stream media's coverage of this in the uk has been sadly predictable with articles like Anne Mcelvoys the exception.
Openess in science is fundamental, these people have struck not only at the heart of the scientific method but also at the heart of our democracy.
Politicians who worry that more than 50% of the population do not believe in man made global warming tells more about the common sense of the British People and less about the abilities of the Groupthinkers to persuade.
The point that is often missed is that these climate scientists are at the core of the IPCC process. A cohort as Wegman et al described.
- Coldplay, London
The simple fact that no-one seems to mention (ever) is that the last ice age was 10,000 years ago. When compared to the overall age of this planet it was a few seconds ago and the Earth is still warming up from that. This is taught in A Level Geology in the UK.
In ice core samples taken at the Antarctic, they have also found higher quantities of CO2 in the atmosphere millions of years ago. Was that too down to man's use of the car and industrialisation?
These guys should really be open to debate on their findings rather than subjecting all nay sayers to torrents of abuse.
Admittedly we will also have an impact on those temperatures, to deny this would be truely foolish, but for "scientists" not to be open to debating their findings to find the real truth is surely more foolish.
"Everything is subject to change" (no not climate change)would be a useful adage for these close minded "experts" to take up.
- Degzie, Slough
As a 65 year old maybe Ms McElvoy should stop waffeling and acknowledge there are just too many people on this planet. Just look around at the diminishing countryside, density of houses. a woman having 4 children will cast on the world 320 man-years of life support, 2 children 160 man-years. Family trees expand not contract. So maybe we should limit the number of children a woman can have, and put a greater burden on the father e.g. a vascetomety after siring 2 children?
- Peter, Orpington, orpington, Kent
"the refusal to treat global warming as a major issue seems to me an unwise risk to take with all our futures."
Got any proof?
It is funny how it was originally called global warming then, when it became obvious the planet was actually getting cooler in places, it became "climate change"
It is just a way to increase tax and control the lives of the unwashed masses (nap)
- Name, London
The man-made global warming fraud in one sentence —Pay more taxes to the government, so government scientists can pretend to control the weather.
The bad news is that we all know it's pretend science now.
The Earth has warmed —by 0.6°C in 100 years; call that a catastrophe?
- Kate, London
Plse MS McE speak for yourself and not in the name of "the public". Even if you - obviously - don't believe in what a large majority of the scientists are telling us, a simple empirical observation of your garden (if you have one) should tell you that all the plants are out together at the moment, three quarters of them out of season.
Rejoicing in the fact like some other imbeciles do that Britain might get warmer summers also proves that they know nothing about Human Nature and the survival instinct of those who will be unlucky enough to live in areas where living no longer will be possible. Good luck. I've decided not to have children as I would probably have bonded with them and "loved" them and I don't want to see them suffer. More and more people on this earth all wanting to enjoy themselves and maximise the use of finite resources is going to be such a party!
- Esther, Guildford
The so-called deniers in the scientific community are the equivalent of flat-earthers. Because all debates on man-made global warming seem to require a 50-50 balance of flat and spherical earthers, it is no wonder that the population and politicians are confused. The government themselves send out mixed messages, because they have to be re-elected, a problem with democracy . Hence encouraging airport expansion whilst at the same time wanting to reduce CO2 emissions. But the main problem seems to spring from allowing journalists who have very little grasp of science - Anne McElvoy is an historian, not a physicist or mathematician - to spout their ill-informed views. You might as well interview climate scientists on the revolution in the GDR in 1989.
Phil Jones is just one of many round-earthers ,though he does need to issue some sort of clarification.
- Fpo, LONDON
I believe the real scandal here is not the deception, but something more mundane. The software and data set quality control has been exposed as unbelievably bad, by industrial (as opposed to academic) standards. Simply not good enough, if you are trying to convince us all to take a huge economic hit. And, whilst the powers that be want to convince us that only a select few climate scientists understand the modelling, there are many, many people with the software knowledge to be able to see, from the leaked data, that the process is flawed. The cat is well and truly out of the bag.
- E.J.T., Bristol, UK
Whether Global warming is true or not, the "ECO" revolution has become a trendy fashionable administrative cash cow, so it will sustain itself.
Like the catalytic converter, which reduces small engine efficiency by around 10 percent, the ECO techno fad is not necessarily the way to go.
If as much money was thrown at clean lean burn diesel engine technology as it was with catalysers in the 90`s, then 100mpg would be the norm now - but "cats" were marketed to be "cool" (a misrepresentation of a word if ever their was one!)
So, like ”Cool CAT”, ”ECO..blah blah blah” is far more environmentally and politically sexy than say, - discussing population control?
And therefore it will win out regardless.
- Darius, London UK
WEell said indeed Ms McElvoy.
The sloppy intellectul culture of the past twelve years has got u inot more mess than just the climate change debate.
The sloppy intellectual culture of sofa government took us into Iraq, with a warning about 45 minutes to mass destruction. It decided to get rid of our gold reserves and dump a pension system that was the envy of Europe, it decided to overturn two hundred years and take the regulatory power away form the Bank of Englan...and so on.
Sloppy intellectual thinking has dominated the newlabour years and has had a considerable price.
- Robin, London
Good article.
For me, the man that matters here is Karl Popper. He argued that all scientific theory was little more than conjecture generated by the creative imagination in order to solve the world's problems. He stated that no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single counterexample is decisive - the theory is bunk. Any scientific theory should therefore rigorously and openly "test the hypothesis" or be dismissed. He compared Marxism (which continually moved the goalposts to retain its validity as a "science" when their predictions failed - making it no more than "pseudo science" for Popper (an ex-Marxist)) with Einstein's Theory of Relativity (which is open to constant testing and "verification" or "falsifiability").
So what would Popper make of the climate change "scientists"? He'd have mixed feelings, I think, and would consider the UAE guys as "psuedo-scientists" for sure. It is a pity because it undermines some good work that Popper would no doubt accept as "falsifiable" (i.e. sets up a hypotheses that can be tested and, potentially, falsified). The climate change lobby must therefore modify its language.
- Milton-Not-Keynes, London
I can't believe how quiet this whole thing has been in the mainstream press, if these mails had been from the other side of this debate it would have been posted everywhere. Instead it’s turning up on odd pages of different news websites.
This has the potential to damage public trust in scientists that was starting to improve thanks to the drug classification fiasco recently.
The whole ‘man-made global warming’ case has been sexed up to push through extra taxes and keep people scared in the same way the ‘war on terror’ is. Note also that the global warming seems to have been dropped for climate change recently due to the fact that their numbers weren’t supporting the current evidence.
- Gordon, Slough
You're a bit late onto this story, ES, but I'm sure we'll all forgive you if you follow up, start doing some serious investigative journalism, put your findings on your front page, and don't let it rest until we've got to the bottom of the matter.
- Tb, London
There have been 2 articles on climate change in The Times this week: one by Nigel Lawson proposing that there should be a reasoned and open debate on the subject, and suggesting that maybe governments should stop levying green taxes; and one by a climate change zealot, poo-pooing Lawson's ideas and claiming that naysayers are akin to Holocaust deniers.
It is pretty difficult to reason with a body who assume that "we are right, you are wrong".
- Nobby Clark, Perth, the Scottish one
This is an excellent and timely article.I am amazed that the University of East Anglia has defended the culprits without a full enquiry. "Big science" is full of corruption,not of the MPs expenses kind, but in the way that scientists subvert the truth on a wide range of subjects.The reason for this is simple-money.In order to do work,and get promotion and influence, scientists must now compete for funding,and the amounts can run into tens of millions. Corruption and bad practise tends to follow big money.
Prof. Milton Wainwright,University of Sheffield.
- Professor Milton Wainwright, Sheffield
Whether you are an environmentalist or not, the recent scandal at the Climate Research Unit in East Anglia has done us all harm. Scientists must stick to the facts and leave politics to the politicians and now we simply do not know how much if any warming is caused by manmade CO2 and unless something drastic is done to bring back credibility we never will.
- Mike, Lenzie
Interestingly, the entire temperature gain of the
20th century has been lost in the last 10 years.
But enough of boring facts.
There are simple questions which one can ask
a believer in Man Made Global Warming
. If they answer in the
affirmative, they are sincere, & probably
amenable to argument. If they disagree, they
are subscribers to a selection of nasty political
beliefs, & should be treated accordingly.
1. You agree that we should work fast to build
more nuclear power stations.
2 Since we are the most overcrowded island in
the Western World, you agree that all immigration
should halt. Illegals & failed asylum seekers should
be removed quickly & recent immigrants encouraged
to return.
3. No child benefits should be payable after a second
child, except when multiple births occur in the second
pregnancy
4. All foreign aid should stop, unless tied to strong
campaigns for family limitation. In which case such aid
will only be needed for a generation.
- British Not Racist, Reading
