Sexed up documents, personal attacks on their critics.. no it’s not Iraq.. it’s Global Warming
A cause for celebration! Reports that the the Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 have been greatly exagerated. Well totally made up in actual fact.
I thought hard before deciding to post on this. I have posted on this subject before (“I am trying very hard not to be a climate change denier “). My concerns have surrounded the over-reliance on “computer models” to predict apocalyptic circumstances; the lack of clarity on what assumptions have been input into these models, based on what ground research and with what level of confidence ? These questions have not been answered. And not only have they not been answered – but those asking these and other questions have been accused of being “flat earthers”, “climate change deniers” and worse. We have been told that there is a total scientific concensus on global warming and those that speak out are mad, malicious or on the payroll of some multinational.
But in reality I did not have to think about it very long. Indignation got the better of me. Because I do actually care about this planet and think the way to getting to the right course of action on the issue of climate change is with hard science, reasoned debate and honesty. Not by governments or its institutions thinking that they can short cut this because they know the problem and the answer and the rest is just media management.
So it was with fury and frustration, not satisfaction, that I learned that the scientist behind the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report in 2007 has finally publicly admitted that the line about disappearing glaciers was nothing more than a bit of “sexing up” to put political pressure on world leaders. No evidence at all to support the notion. Nada.
This makes old Alistair Campbell’s attempts during the Iraq affair look positively amateurish by comparison. If you missed the coverage over past few days, it went something like this… Two magazine articles appeared in 1999 stating that glaciers were set to disappear by 2035. This information was then recycled by WWF in 2005 without any fact checking. The IPCC then used the WWF report as the sole basis for its assertions in 2007 because they thought it would “impact policy makers and politicians to take some concrete action“. Never mind the truth.
This was a report from the revered IPCC (“the leading body for the assessment of climate change, established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences”), involving an esteemed working group and reviewed by 500+ external reviewers. So what went wrong?
Well the Global Warming Policy Foundation (Nigel Lawson’s new group) will publish an analysis of those 500 or so formal review comments tomorrow. But in essense a good number of highly regarded indidivuals and institutions did raise questions, ask for clarification, query the level of confidence and indeed urge the IPCC group to withdraw the assertion of glacier melting as patently untrue. As far as one can tell from the information available to date, they were simply ignored.
Worse than that. And here’s another bit of indignation… A report published by the Indian Government just last November written by geologist Vijay Kumar Raina, stating that “Himalyan glaciers have not in anyway exhibited, especially in recent years, an abnormal annual retreat” was dismissed as “voodoo science” by the chairman of the IPCC who said “With the greatest of respect this guy retired years ago and I find it totally baffling that he comes out and throws out everything that has been established years ago.”
Last week the IPCC was forced to withdraw its claim over the melting glaciers as it has no scientific foundation. The WWF has likewise issued a retraction.
Heads should roll over how these claims of glacier melting ever found their way into the IPCC report. But what is almost worse is the assertion by the IPCC when questioned that “everything has been established years ago”.
Yet again it calls into question the whole issue. Who should we trust? How do we even know who we should trust? How much more of the “scientific concensus” on global warming and its causes is built on so-called science “established years ago”. As I post this I learn that another IPCC claim linking global warming to natural disasters has now also come under question. Oh dear…….
January 25th, 2010 at 6:07 pm
This is hilarious. You have an issue with climate models, yet the whole of libertarianism is based on one big, highly theoretical model. The only difference between the two is the much higher success rate by the climatologists.
Face it, the reason why you seek to deny the existence of climate change isn’t about evidence (and you’ve managed to discredit one piece – well done, but perhaps you might try the thousands of others?) – it’s purely ideological. Free market economics can’t come up with an answer to the problem of the environment, so it’s better to stick your fingers in your ears and just hope it goes away. Well it won’t.
January 25th, 2010 at 7:00 pm
It’s not true to say that there isn’t any possible free market response to global warming. A sensibel, market-based solution would be a carbon tax – to internalise the externality. This would be immensely preferable to the state “picking winners” by e.g. subsidizing wind farms. Nigel Lawson’s book – “An Appeal to Reason” is very good in this regard.
I don’t accept that libertarianism is based on “one big, highly theoretical model”. There are a multitude of different versions of libertarianism with a swathe of different (and sometimes competing) intellectual roots.
In general, I think the empirical evidence that free markets and free socieities produce the best outcomes is pretty overwhelming. But this is just a simple utilitarian justification. There are certainly some areas where I would still support a pro-freedom position even if it wasn’t e.g. GDP-maximising.
I certainly hope climate change ISN’T happening at any serious level. (Although I’ve heard it argued that a 2 degree temperature rise might be a net benefit to mankind). If CO2 emissions really are threatening the planet, this is bad news. I sure hope they aren’t. You’ve have to be very odd indeed to actually want it to be the case that manmade CO2 emissions are destroying the planet.
But just because I want something to be true, doesn’t mean that it is. I pray we’re not hurtling towards apocalypse, but if we are, I’d like to know about it.
Where I agree with Angela’s post, however, is that there does seem to be a tendency to insist that the science is settled – and that to even question whether anthropogenic climate change is (a) happening or (b) harmful is akin to questioning the law of gravity. I don’t accept that’s the case at all. It seems to me that the science is far less settled than some would have us believe.
January 26th, 2010 at 10:01 am
I clicked to make a comment and found “Foregone Conclusion” had beaten me to the general idea.
The whole extreme free-market movement is based on simplistic theoretical models.
One can very easily find cases of people who have a personal motivation to support its theories pushing forward data that works for them, and hiding data that doesn’t – just the thing with those UEA emails which led the climate change deniers to say “hah hah hah – it’s all based on lies”.
In both cases the fact it has enthusiasts pushing it for non-scientific reasons doesn’t mean the basic idea is wrong. Academics too tend to work in just this way. Sure, they have a basic respect for the facts, but if you’re in a particular line of research, you will look for those facts which support it and not those which don’t.
Extreme free market people are fond of knocking climate change fears, claiming it isn’t properly proved because you can find the occasional scientist who – quite legitimately – has found an argument that could go against it. But they quote as fact hypotheses which are much more dubious, where the weight of academic research is much more balanced.
January 26th, 2010 at 1:54 pm
Read reports by Ed Wegman ( including Stupak Report) on the the use of statistics by the palaeoclimate community and the assessment of the nature of peer review. Wegman has said that the palaeoclomate community uses statistics but lacks the skills and should copy the medical /pharmaceutical industry in their use of statisticians.
It is time all data and any data which has been lost or removed is reassessed. Even if if it costs hundreds of millions of pounds, it will be cheaper than spending money on the wrong technology.
The collapse of the money markets was in part due to over complex computer models.The Iraq War is another example of decisions being made on inadequate data.
Climate is complex and too many of the papers are based upon insuffficient data, both in areal extent and duration; selection of data and quality of sampling.
January 27th, 2010 at 12:34 am
Foregone Conclusion.
I need to explain to you that climatology is NOT a religion. Climatologists are not the high priests of the 21st century that have some unique insight into the future of mankind. And I urge you to reconsider your wording ….”denying the existance of climate change” . I say again – this is not a religion or a faith. Its a science.
I worked in research and predictive modelling for 20 years. I know how difficult any modelling can be and how TINY changes to your assumptions or field research can have dramatic implications on your projections. I also know from experience that research follows the money.
So it is with some understanding of research/modelling/funding that I ask for clarity from those issuing doomsday warnings concerning global warming to release the data on which these models are predicated so that fair and independent evaluation can be made. You cant tell me this is “sensitive information” . Nor is it an unreasonable request. We would all have been in a much better place had we had a chance to examine the data on which the govt sent us into Iraq BEFORE we went in.
I also EXPECT that when the data that underpins their modelling is challenged – they dont diss or attempt to discredit those people – but are seen to embrace and investigate the new information that is offered.
Bludgeoning people into “believing”….attacking people for when they question “the gospel” will get you nowhere. You just end up sounding…well odd.
How loudly can I shout, how often do i need to post …. that the state of the planet is something I care about too and its SOMEWHAT MORE IMPORTANT than where I sit on the political spectrum.
I am not asking for honesty as a person from the left or right – but as someone who is sick and tired of being lied to and patronised by govts and their lackies.
All I am asking for is that someone gets a grip on this. That science and scientists are allowed to debate this freely.How terrifying/uncomfortable can that possibly be?
January 27th, 2010 at 11:39 am
The glacier thing was a cock up, not a conspiracy. Sadly the media found it, believed it, and felt stupid afterwards.
The world is 0.75 degrees warmer than it was in 1900, CO2 in atmosphere has increased. Human activity produces most of the CO2, CO2 is important to the atmosphere’s heat retention properties. You don’t need to know much more, unless your a climatologist. Except of course, that our species is unlikely to survive a 6 degree rise, one of the worse case predictions, but that’s just an ‘apocalyptic prediction’
January 27th, 2010 at 3:43 pm
@Chris Huang-Leaver
I strongly disagree that you don’t need to know any more than the scant data you provide (unless you’re a climatologist).
There is not even a strong, obvious correlation between increasing C02 emissions and the planet’s temperature (e.g. no warming in the last ten years). You are right that temperature has risen since 1900 and so have CO2 emissions, but this isn’t quite the same thing.There are clearly other forces at work which might offset or enhance the changes brought about by increased carbon emissions. There have been very, very dramatic changes in climate over the past few hundred years that have no immediately clear link to carbon emissions. Even if the science suggests that CO2 has an impact on atmosphere’s heat retention properties, there is a need to know how substnatial such an impact is and whether it is overshadowed or out-trupmed by other more dramatic impacts.
Secondly, although I’d guess you’re right that a six degree rise in temperature could be a catastrophe, this really is at the ultra-extreme end of predictions. So, we need to calculate the likelihood of the risk, not just the consequences. Being invaded by extra-terrestials might also spell disaster for the human race – but it’s doubtful whether much money should be spent mitigating such a risk!
Thirdly, a rise in global temperature of, say, 2 degrees might not be too bad. It might even be beneficial. There is no reason to believe that the climate we are experiencing at the moment is the optimum one. Some degree of global warming, if fairly modest and if it occurs over a fairly lengthy time horizon, is not in and of itself a “bad thing”.
Fourthly, even if manmade carbon emissions are causing global warming and even if this global warming is a bad thing, it doesn’t necessarily and automatically follow that the solution is to reduce carbon emissions. It might be better to simply mitigate the effects of climate change and adapt to a new climate rather than to try and stop climate change happening at all. There are very dramatic costs associated with reducing carbon emissions, it might be the case that it is preferable to e.g. invest in enormously enhanced flood defences or consider a geoengineering solution. I’m not saying these definitely are better solutions, just that they need to be considered.
Climatology is an infant science. Although I’d to be able to rely on expert opinion, I think all those who take any sort of interest in the future health, wealth and happiness of the human race will want to explore these issues in considerable depth. As so many world leaders are saying this is the most important crisis facing humanity, engaged and intelligent citizens will surely want to know more than the few crumbs you manged to cram into a four line blog post.
January 28th, 2010 at 11:29 pm
The Climategate emails show the climatologists
* Cheering the death of a fellow-scientist
* Faking data
* Deleting data
* Conspiring to obstruct FoI requests
The program files leaked at the same time show a D-I-Y brain-surgery approach to programming: no version control, no programming standards or peer-review (!), hundreds of ad-hoc adjustments to data.
This helped to de-rail the Copenhagenfiasco where they mixed the Kool Aid and even filled the plastic cups but funked it at the last minute.
Next up we had Patchy-gate where the business interests of IPCC boss Raj Pachauri were revealed: multiple directorships of companies already receiving huge amounts and standing to gain even more.
Glaciergate is the bogus claim of Himalayan glaciers disappearing by 2035 – the original claim was made by a Pachauri employee.
Then there is Amazon-gate where an unpublished scientific paper on forest fires turned into an IPCC claim of 40% of the Amazon dying off.
Good summary on the BBC here
January 29th, 2010 at 6:28 pm
On this quote;
“…impact policy makers and politicians to take some concrete action”
This seems to have originated with a Daily Mail piece by David Rose, found here. The quote was supposedly from Dr Murari Lal. Lal denies he said this, or a number of the other statements attributed to him.
In any case, this seems to be an absolutely trivial point to argue over. It was stupid to include the claim, but very little (if anything) has been based on such claims.
February 3rd, 2010 at 2:08 pm
The link to “I am trying very hard not to be a climate change denier” – is a link to edit the post with a WordPress login. What’s the public link?
February 3rd, 2010 at 8:04 pm
Thanks Adam, now fixed.