• Home
  • Perspectives
  • Articles
  • Columns
  • Platform
  • Poetry
    • Literature
  • Shop
    • Cart
    • My account
  • Support
    • Donation Confirmation
  • Write for us
Search
53.2 F
Los Angeles
Sunday, March 26, 2023
Sign in
Welcome! Log into your account
Forgot your password? Get help
Privacy Policy
Password recovery
Recover your password
A password will be e-mailed to you.
Media Monitors Network (MMN)
  • Home
  • Perspectives
    • Jerusalem Israel Palestine Dome of The Rock Golden Dome

      The Abraham Accords undermined much-needed peace with Palestinians

      World Map

      Global disturbing disparities

      Globe Algeria Niger Mali Africa

      There is always a price to pay for befriending the Zionists

      Illegal Israeli Settlements

      Antisemitism claims mask a reign of political and cultural terror across…

      The Flower - Pakistan Monument at Night

      Israel in the vanguard of India’s mounting conflict with Pakistan

  • Articles
    • Man studying religious book

      Ishmael and Isaac: An Essay on the Divergent Moral Economies of…

      Mahmoud Abbas

      May Your Home Be Destroyed

      Netanyahu Lighting Hanukah Candles with His Wife and Sons

      Bibi’s Son or: Three Men in a Car

      The Map of Greater Israel

      The Man Who Jumped

      West Bank - Palestine

      Cry, Beloved Country

  • Columns
    • Progressives Must Fight With -- and In -- the Democratic Party

      Steps Left for Electing Progressives and Defeating Republicans in the Midterms

      Tax Revelations and Corporate Media Won’t Defeat Trump

      Nancy Pelosi Could Get Us All Killed

      Tax Revelations and Corporate Media Won’t Defeat Trump

      ‘Fortress Mentality’ Among U.S. Leaders Has Trapped Us in a Cycle…

      Progressives Must Fight With -- and In -- the Democratic Party

      Grassroots Organizing Should Dump Biden and Clear the Path for a…

      Corporate Media Are Focusing on Race -- and Dodging Class

      Biden Refuses to Mention the Worsening Dangers of Nuclear War. Media…

  • Platform
    • Hanukkah Lights

      Hanukkah is not hypocrisy

      The Washington Post

      “Preemptive war could risk millions of casualties. But….”

      When they shout: "We strongly condemn…"

      68

      Why Iran won’t attack Israel

      Is One Iraqi’s Self-Hatred Newsworthy?

  • Poetry
    • Literature
  • Shop
    • Cart
    • My account
  • Support
    • Donation Confirmation
  • Write for us
Home Perspectives The Real ClimateGate, Part 1 :: Getting over the non-existent ’email’ scandal...
  • Perspectives

The Real ClimateGate, Part 1 :: Getting over the non-existent ’email’ scandal ::

By
Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed
-
September 30, 2010
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Linkedin
ReddIt
Email
Print
Tumblr
Telegram
Mix
VK
Digg
LINE
Viber
Naver

    Over the last few weeks, in the run-up to the official UK release of my new book A User’s Guide to the Crisis of Civilization on 4th October, I’ve been inundated with angry and often exasperated claims that one of the key crises I address in the book –” human-induced climate change –” is merely a myth, lacks serious scientific evidence, and/or is the sinister result of deliberate ‘scare-mongering.’

    My experience is that public opinion is now seriously confused about the science of climate change, and that increasingly people either feel they fall into an agnostic camp, or categorize themselves as wholesale ‘sceptics’. Recent polls of American public opinion in August found that as much as 45 per cent of people believe that global warming “is caused by long-term planetary trends”, while only 40 per cent are convinced that “human activity is the main contributor.” In the UK, the number of people who believe climate change is “definitely” a reality dropped by a massive 30 per cent over the preceding year, from 44 to 31 per cent.

    There’s no doubt that this has been a direct result of a series of scandalous stories which received worldwide press coverage, starting with the leaked emails from the climate science unit at the University of East Anglia, and finishing with a whole range of claims attempting to discredit the IPCC’s landmark Fourth Assessment Report published in early 2007, which confirmed a 90 per cent certainty that current global warming was due to human-induced fossil fuel emissions.

    One of the purposes of writing my book was precisely to explore the so-called ‘sceptic-alarmist’ debates –” across a whole range of global crises, not just climate change –” to get at the truth of the matter. The sheer repetitive nature of the misconceptions has led me to decide to deal with them systematically here.

    One of the earliest and loudest self-styled ‘sceptics’ of anthropogenic global warming is Senator James Inhofe, the ranking minority member of the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. In late 2007, Inhofe released a list of over 400 “prominent scientists” who “disputed man-made global warming claims.” By 2009, Inhofe had expanded his list to just under 700 people. The Inhofe list has been regularly cited by climate sceptics as evidence that there is no scientific consensus on climate change, and that most scientists actually challenge the idea that global warming is human-induced.

    I discuss Inhofe’s fraudulent list at some length in the book, but it suffices here to note that a thorough study of the curiously ever-expanding Inhofe list was completed in summer 2009 by the Center for Inquiry in the US. Among other things, the study found that fewer than 10 per cent of the people on Inhofe’s list could be identified as climate scientists; that a further 4 per cent actually favoured the IPCC consensus on anthropogenic global warming; and that 80 per cent of the list had no peer-reviewed publications related to climate science.

    The Inhofe list was widely publicized by the media –” even though, as of the end of 2009, Senator Inhofe has received at least a million dollars in campaign contributions from individuals and companies linked to the US oil and gas industry. This should not come as a surprise.

    In the period from January 2009 to June 2010, the world’s top 35 companies and trade associations linked to fossil fuels, mining and electric utility companies invested more than $500 million “in lobbying and campaign contributions… to defeat clean energy legislation”, successfully convincing enough US senators to oppose energy reforms. The lobbyists included the usual ‘special interest’ players: ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, BP, Koch Industries and Shell. This is nothing new. Oil tycoons at Koch gave a total of $50 million to climate ‘sceptic’ front groups from 1998 to 2007. ExxonMobil gave $16 million to similar groups in around the same period to support their activities, and have been exposed again this July, giving $1 million this year to “organisations that campaign against controls on greenhouse gas emissions” –” including several groups which led attacks on climate scientists at the University of East Anglia. These are all simply isolated cases that are part of a wider ongoing campaign by the fossil fuel industries to promulgate disinformation and confusion about climate change, so as to consolidate their own control over the global political economy.

    It is not a surprise then that Inhofe himself was among the first to jump on the 2009 climate email ‘scandal’ bandwagon, when thousands of emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit from a period of more than ten years were obtained by hackers. One of the emails most cited by ‘sceptics’, by the head of the unit, Professor Phil Jones, reads: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline”.

    Inhofe’s press blog commented that the email “appears to show several scientists eager to present a particular viewpoint –” that anthropogenic emissions are largely responsible for global warming –” even when the data showed something different”.

    But the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), analyzing this and other leaked emails, explained the language and scientific context in detail:

    “Jones is talking about how scientists compare temperature data from thermometers with temperature data derived from tree rings. Comparing that data allows scientists to derive past temperature data for several centuries before accurate thermometer measurements were available. The global average surface temperature since 1880 is based on thermometer and satellite temperature measurements…

    In some parts of the world, tree rings are a good substitute for temperature record. Trees form a ring of new growth every growing season. Generally, warmer temperatures produce thicker tree rings, while colder temperatures produce thinner ones. Other factors, such as precipitation, soil properties, and the tree’s age also can affect tree ring growth.

    The ‘trick,’ which was used in a paper published in 1998 in the science journal Nature, is to combine the older tree ring data with thermometer data. Combining the two data sets can be difficult, and scientists are always interested in new ways to make temperature records more accurate.

    Tree rings are a largely consistent source of data for the past 2,000 years. But since the 1960s, scientists have noticed there are a handful of tree species in certain areas that appear to indicate temperatures that are warmer or colder than we actually know they are from direct thermometer measurement at weather stations.

    ‘Hiding the decline’ in this email refers to omitting data from some Siberian trees after 1960. This omission was openly discussed in the latest climate science update in 2007 from the IPCC, so it is not ‘hidden’ at all.

    Why Siberian trees? In the Yamal region of Siberia, there is a small set of trees with rings that are thinner than expected after 1960 when compared with actual thermometer measurements there. Scientists are still trying to figure out why these trees are outliers. Some analyses have left out the data from these trees after 1960 and have used thermometer temperatures instead. Techniques like this help scientists reconstruct past climate temperature records based on the best available data.”

    Another email from scientist Kevin Trenberth laments that “we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment”, describing this as a “travesty” due to the fact that “Our observing system is inadequate”.

    UCS points out that he is talking about short-term internal climate variability, in particular the year 2008 “which was cooler than scientists expected, but still among the 10 warmest years on record.”

    Yet another email by Jones, construed by ‘sceptics’ as evidence of scientists manipulating peer review to squeeze out legitimate climate dissenters, objects to a paper on solar variability in the climate published in Climate Research, and calls for scientists to boycott the journal until it effects a change in editorship. Yet as UCS clarifies:

    “Half of the editorial board of Climate Research resigned in protest against what they felt was a failure of the peer review process. The paper, which argued that current warming was unexceptional, was disputed by scientists whose work was cited in the paper. Many subsequent publications set the record straight, which demonstrates how the peer review process over time tends to correct such lapses. Scientists later discovered that the paper was funded by the American Petroleum Institute.”

    Thus, UCS rightly concluded that whoever stole the emails “could only produce a handful of messages that, when taken out of context, might seem suspicious to people who are not familiar with the intimate details of climate science.”

    The idea that these emails constitute evidence of a ‘scientific conspiracy’ to engineer evidence to support a fraudulent theory of man-made global warming is, in this context, preposterous.

    No wonder then that three separate independent inquiries into the whole University of East Anglia email fiasco have unequivocally and thoroughly cleared the climate scientists of any wrong-doing or deception, vindicated the integrity of the scientific methods and evidence they used, and re-instated them back into their jobs. The parliamentary science and technology select committee, a university-commissioned independent inquiry by Lord Oxburgh (a former chair of that committee), and finally a comprehensive six-month Independent Review chaired by Sir Muir Russell, all concluded that the so-called ‘scandal’ was a non-entity, and confirmed the “rigour and honesty” of the scientists involved. Pretty much the most they criticized the scientists for was for being “unhelpful and defensive” in communication with people requesting information.

    About the only people who insisted on questioning these findings as part of a ‘whitewash’ were Lord Nigel Lawson and friends from the fossil fuel industry-connected Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). Lawson himself chairs and holds shares in the Central European Trust, whose clients include oil and gas lobby giants like BP Amaco, the Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Texaco. Of course, the fact that the GWPF shares offices with the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining, which in turn shares employees from BP, is nothing more than a coincidence.

    So please, dear ‘sceptics’. Stop regurgitating dead ‘news’, which we now know to be false.

    • TAGS
    • about
    • account
    • accurate
    • across
    • activity
    • actually
    • adding
    • address
    • after
    • again
    • against
    • allows
    • always
    • American
    • among
    • analyzing
    • angry
    • another
    • appear
    • areas
    • around
    • assessment
    • attacks
    • based
    • before
    Facebook
    Twitter
    Pinterest
    WhatsApp
    Linkedin
    ReddIt
    Email
    Print
    Tumblr
    Telegram
    Mix
    VK
    Digg
    LINE
    Viber
    Naver
      Previous articleTwo Fingers
      Next articleIt’s Not What You Say, it’s How You Say it
      Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed

      Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, D.Phil. (Sussex), is Executive Director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development, London, United Kingdom. He teaches courses in political theory, international relations and contemporary history at the School of Social Sciences and Cultural Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom. He is the author of "The London Bombings: An Independent Inquiry", "The War on Freedom: How and Why America was Attacked, September 11, 2001", "Behind the War on Terror: Western Secret Strategy and the Struggle for Iraq" and  "The War On Truth: 9/11, Disinformation And The Anatomy Of Terrorism". His latest book is  "A User's Guide to the Crisis of Civilization: And How to Save It". He is a regular contributor to Media Monitors Network (MMN) and his articles are archived at nafeez.mediamonitors.net.

      RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

      Jerusalem Israel Palestine Dome of The Rock Golden Dome

      The Abraham Accords undermined much-needed peace with Palestinians

      World Map

      Global disturbing disparities

      Globe Algeria Niger Mali Africa

      There is always a price to pay for befriending the Zionists

      Google Search

      MMN @ Google Play Store MMN @ Amazon Appstore

      MMN @ TwitterMMN @ FacebookMMN Feed

      EDITOR PICKS

      Progressives Must Fight With -- and In -- the Democratic Party

      Steps Left for Electing Progressives and Defeating Republicans in the Midterms

      August 31, 2022
      Tax Revelations and Corporate Media Won’t Defeat Trump

      Nancy Pelosi Could Get Us All Killed

      August 1, 2022
      Tax Revelations and Corporate Media Won’t Defeat Trump

      ‘Fortress Mentality’ Among U.S. Leaders Has Trapped Us in a Cycle...

      July 25, 2022

      POPULAR POSTS

      167

      The Origin of Freemasonry: The Crusaders & Templars

      April 23, 2003

      Sharon to Peres: We Control America

      November 20, 2001
      Qibla - Kaaba

      Direction of Al-Qiblah

      February 23, 2003

      POPULAR CATEGORY

      • Perspectives13563
      • News6859
      • World6005
      • Asia4901
      • Columns1370
      • Africa985
      • Articles786
      • Australasia638
      • Health628
      ABOUT US
      Media Monitors Network (MMN) is a non-profit, non-partial and non-political platform for those serious Media Contributors and Observers who crave to know and like to help to prevail the whole truth about current affairs, any disputed issue or any controversial issue by their voluntary contributions with logic, reason and rationality.
      Contact us: [email protected]
      FOLLOW US
      • About MMN
      • Disclaimer
      • Privacy Policy
      • Terms and Conditions
      • Contact
      Copyright © 2000 - MMN International Inc. All rights reserved.
      Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
      All other brands, logos, and product names are registered
      trademarks or service marks of their respective owners.
      ResponsiveVoice-NonCommercial licensed under 95x15
      MORE STORIES
      First Person: The Indonesian power ranger

      First Person: The Indonesian power ranger

      March 24, 2023
      Fight slavery’s 'legacy of racism' through education: Guterres

      Fight slavery’s ‘legacy of racism’ through education: Guterres

      March 24, 2023