In The News
CBS Evening News: Climate Gate Casts Cloud on UN Copenhagen Global Warming Meetings
Sunday December 6, 2009
(CBS) Hundreds of world leaders and climate change experts are descending on Copenhagen to try to come up with a new pact to slow global warming.
At the same time, thousands of protestors across Europe Saturday were sending them a message: time to stop talking and make a deal.
Reaching that deal has now been complicated by what's being called "Climate Gate," a string of hacked private e-mails between global climate change scientists in the U.S. and Europe, casting doubts on the very science of which this summit is based, reports CBS News Correspondent Kimberly Dozier.
The e-mails show some of the world's top experts decided to exclude or manipulate some research that didn't help prove global warming exists.
1998 was the hottest year since record-keeping began...but the temperature went down the next year, and it's only spiked a couple times since.
An e-mail exchange in 1999 shows scientists worked hard to demonstrate an upward trend. They talk of using a "trick" to "hide the decline" in global temperatures.
It worked like this: when temperature readings extrapolated from tree rings showed what looked like a decline in temperatures from the 1980s to the present, the scientists added in measurements taken later by more modern instruments, which gave them the answer they wanted.
The scientists say the e-mails are being misinterpreted.
"A lot of charges have been made that I think are quiet unjustified, cherry-picking information and taking it our of context and misrepresenting what it is actually saying," Kevin Trenberth of National Center for Atmospheric Research told Dozier.
Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe - a climate change skeptic - says the e-mails prove the global warming threat is exaggerated. He wants a congressional investigation.
"We are relying upon that science for a bunch of stuff that we would be doing that would lose a lot of jobs and really affect Americans," Inhofe told Dozier. "I do believe an investigation would show that they clearly have manipulated the data."
The official U.S. position hasn't changed: that climate change is real and needs to be addressed.
At the same time, thousands of protestors across Europe Saturday were sending them a message: time to stop talking and make a deal.
Reaching that deal has now been complicated by what's being called "Climate Gate," a string of hacked private e-mails between global climate change scientists in the U.S. and Europe, casting doubts on the very science of which this summit is based, reports CBS News Correspondent Kimberly Dozier.
The e-mails show some of the world's top experts decided to exclude or manipulate some research that didn't help prove global warming exists.
1998 was the hottest year since record-keeping began...but the temperature went down the next year, and it's only spiked a couple times since.
An e-mail exchange in 1999 shows scientists worked hard to demonstrate an upward trend. They talk of using a "trick" to "hide the decline" in global temperatures.
It worked like this: when temperature readings extrapolated from tree rings showed what looked like a decline in temperatures from the 1980s to the present, the scientists added in measurements taken later by more modern instruments, which gave them the answer they wanted.
The scientists say the e-mails are being misinterpreted.
"A lot of charges have been made that I think are quiet unjustified, cherry-picking information and taking it our of context and misrepresenting what it is actually saying," Kevin Trenberth of National Center for Atmospheric Research told Dozier.
Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe - a climate change skeptic - says the e-mails prove the global warming threat is exaggerated. He wants a congressional investigation.
"We are relying upon that science for a bunch of stuff that we would be doing that would lose a lot of jobs and really affect Americans," Inhofe told Dozier. "I do believe an investigation would show that they clearly have manipulated the data."
The official U.S. position hasn't changed: that climate change is real and needs to be addressed.
VIDEO: Inhofe: It's ‘Dishonest' for Obama to Attend Global Warming Summit and Say America Will Cap Carbon Emissions
Friday December 4, 2009
CNSNews.com - Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, says it is "dishonest" for President Barack Obama to attend the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen next week to announce that the United States will cap its carbon emissions because legislation to do so has no chance of passing in Congress.
The White House announced on November 26 that Obama will personally attend the climate summit on December 9 and announce there that the U.S. intends by the year 2020 to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions to 17 percent below what they were in 2005. This 17% reduction mirrors the reduction that would be mandated in the United States if the cap-and-trade bill that passed the House by a 219-212 vote on June 26 were enacted into law.
The White House announced on November 26 that Obama will personally attend the climate summit on December 9 and announce there that the U.S. intends by the year 2020 to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions to 17 percent below what they were in 2005. This 17% reduction mirrors the reduction that would be mandated in the United States if the cap-and-trade bill that passed the House by a 219-212 vote on June 26 were enacted into law.
Financial Times: Backlash by sceptics begins to gain ground
Friday December 4, 2009
The resurgent climate change sceptic movement claimed its first political scalp this week when Australia's opposition Liberal party dumped its leader, Malcolm Turnbull, over his support for the federal government's legislation to reduce carbon emissions.
Tony Abbott, the new opposition leader, has said the argument for climate change is "crap" and he is unconvinced by the science. This week he ruled out the two main methods that have been proposed for reducing carbon emissions: a trading scheme and a carbon tax.
However, global public opinion polls continue to show that most people around the world regard climate change as a serious man-made problem and favour action against it. Scepticism is strongest - and growing fastest - in the US, though even here a majority of voters believes carbon dioxide is causing global warming.
Tony Abbott, the new opposition leader, has said the argument for climate change is "crap" and he is unconvinced by the science. This week he ruled out the two main methods that have been proposed for reducing carbon emissions: a trading scheme and a carbon tax.
However, global public opinion polls continue to show that most people around the world regard climate change as a serious man-made problem and favour action against it. Scepticism is strongest - and growing fastest - in the US, though even here a majority of voters believes carbon dioxide is causing global warming.
Financial Times: Global warming a ‘hoax'
Friday December 4, 2009
Jim Inhofe has one mission for the Copenhagen climate change summit: to be a self-declared "one-man truth squad".
"I want to make sure that people from around the world understand that there is no way that the United States is going to ratify any kind of treaty that is anything at all like Kyoto," the cowboy-boot-wearing senator from Oklahoma told the Financial Times.
"And there is no way in the world that the Kerry-Boxer Bill on the floor of the Senate will even come up for a vote. It's dead, gone," said Mr Inhofe, referring to the climate change bill that is now languishing in the upper chamber.
President Barack Obama has conceded that the Copenhagen summit is not going to result in a binding international treaty. But when he travels to the Danish capital next week he will state that the US is working towards reducing its carbon emissions by 17 per cent from 2005 levels by 2020. To counteract the president's message, Mr Inhofe, ranking Republican on the Senate's environment and public works committee, plans to attend too.
"I want to make sure that people from around the world understand that there is no way that the United States is going to ratify any kind of treaty that is anything at all like Kyoto," the cowboy-boot-wearing senator from Oklahoma told the Financial Times.
"And there is no way in the world that the Kerry-Boxer Bill on the floor of the Senate will even come up for a vote. It's dead, gone," said Mr Inhofe, referring to the climate change bill that is now languishing in the upper chamber.
President Barack Obama has conceded that the Copenhagen summit is not going to result in a binding international treaty. But when he travels to the Danish capital next week he will state that the US is working towards reducing its carbon emissions by 17 per cent from 2005 levels by 2020. To counteract the president's message, Mr Inhofe, ranking Republican on the Senate's environment and public works committee, plans to attend too.
CLIMATEGATE: WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE
Friday December 4, 2009
"There is one feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science...It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked...Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it." --Richard Feynman, Nobel laureate physicist
Roger Pielke Jr.: Your Politics are Showing
Friday December 4, 2009
In early 2005, almost five years ago, I began criticizing the scientists at RealClimate, including Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann, for hiding a political agenda in the cloth of science. In The Honest Broker I call this behavior "stealth issue advocacy" and it is among the most insidious and certain ways for science to become pathologically politicized . To be clear, I have no problem with scientists being open advocates, with NASA's Jim Hansen as perhaps the most visible example -- through such advocacy is how democracies work. But when scientists claim to be representing the scientific establishment while at the same time are pursuing a political agenda, it hurts the credibility and trust given to scientists.
At the time I wrote:
. . . opponents to action on climate change have already taken a big step toward winning the political debate when advocates of action take the bait on uncertainty. By raising uncertainty as a red herring advocates for action spend considerable time and effort trying to disprove allegations of uncertainty as the centerpiece of their efforts, but no matter how this sideshow winds up, it will do little to change the underlying political outcome, as the opponents can just switch their justification to something else while maintaining their political commitment to opposition. This is an exceedingly difficult line of argument for environmentalists and scientists to accept because the former have hitched their agenda to science and the latter's claims to authority lie in science.
At the time I wrote:
. . . opponents to action on climate change have already taken a big step toward winning the political debate when advocates of action take the bait on uncertainty. By raising uncertainty as a red herring advocates for action spend considerable time and effort trying to disprove allegations of uncertainty as the centerpiece of their efforts, but no matter how this sideshow winds up, it will do little to change the underlying political outcome, as the opponents can just switch their justification to something else while maintaining their political commitment to opposition. This is an exceedingly difficult line of argument for environmentalists and scientists to accept because the former have hitched their agenda to science and the latter's claims to authority lie in science.
National Review: Skeptic Man: Sen. James Inhofe's (political) climate is changing for the better
Friday December 4, 2009
He's been named the world's number-one conservative idiot by left-wing bloggers. European protesters have stuck his mug on "Wanted" posters for calling man-made global warming a "hoax." And the mainstream media has consistently ridiculed him as an ornery Archie Bunker type, calling him, among other things, "the noisiest climate skeptic in the U.S." (Bloomberg), "banged on the head too many times" (Garrison Keillor), and, most colorfully, "the Senate's resident denier bunny," who "thinks global warming is debunked every time he drinks a slushy and gets a brain freeze" (Jon Stewart).
The target of these barbs is the Senate's resident climate skeptic: Sen. James Inhofe. After two decades in Congress, he tells me he's used to the knocks. In fact, the Oklahoma Republican, who last week turned 75, actually enjoys the sparring, especially this week, after thousands of embarrassing e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England were leaked. In the exchanges, top climate scientists strategize on how best to "hide the decline" of global warming and hash out tactics for bullying skeptics away from publishing in leading journals.
The target of these barbs is the Senate's resident climate skeptic: Sen. James Inhofe. After two decades in Congress, he tells me he's used to the knocks. In fact, the Oklahoma Republican, who last week turned 75, actually enjoys the sparring, especially this week, after thousands of embarrassing e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England were leaked. In the exchanges, top climate scientists strategize on how best to "hide the decline" of global warming and hash out tactics for bullying skeptics away from publishing in leading journals.
Obama Administration Dismisses Climategate, Vows to Press Forward With Endangerment Finding
Thursday December 3, 2009
Despite ongoing investigations in the US and UK, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson dismissed Climategate during yesterday's Senate EPW hearing, saying she sees no need to investigate the matter. She vowed to implement job-killing global warming regulations despite growing evidence that the scientific basis of those regulations is crumbling.
Senator Inhofe asked Jackson to halt the endangerment finding until investigations over leaked emails showing collusion by scientists to distort, conceal, and delete inconvenient data are completed.
As the Associated Press reported on December 1st, "Britain's University of East Anglia says the director of its prestigious Climatic Research Unit is stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change. The university says Phil Jones will relinquish his position until the completion of an independent review into allegations that he worked to alter the way in which global temperature data was presented."
In addition, Michael Mann, who wrote several of the Climategate emails, is being investigated by his employer, Penn State University.
In the Senate, Senator Boxer is still considering holding senate hearings. Senator Inhofe has already launched a congressional investigation.
Senator Inhofe asked Jackson to halt the endangerment finding until investigations over leaked emails showing collusion by scientists to distort, conceal, and delete inconvenient data are completed.
As the Associated Press reported on December 1st, "Britain's University of East Anglia says the director of its prestigious Climatic Research Unit is stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change. The university says Phil Jones will relinquish his position until the completion of an independent review into allegations that he worked to alter the way in which global temperature data was presented."
In addition, Michael Mann, who wrote several of the Climategate emails, is being investigated by his employer, Penn State University.
In the Senate, Senator Boxer is still considering holding senate hearings. Senator Inhofe has already launched a congressional investigation.
LISTEN: Inhofe Guest on The Grandy and Andy Morning Show To Talk Climategate
December 03, 2009
Thursday December 3, 2009
Posted by: David Lungren David_Lungren@epw.senate.gov
WSJ: Op-Ed: Climategate: Science Is Dying
Thursday December 3, 2009
Surely there must have been serious men and women in the hard sciences who at some point worried that their colleagues in the global warming movement were putting at risk the credibility of everyone in science. The nature of that risk has been twofold: First, that the claims of the climate scientists might buckle beneath the weight of their breathtaking complexity. Second, that the crudeness of modern politics, once in motion, would trample the traditions and culture of science to achieve its own policy goals. With the scandal at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, both have happened at once.
I don't think most scientists appreciate what has hit them. This isn't only about the credibility of global warming. For years, global warming and its advocates have been the public face of hard science. Most people could not name three other subjects they would associate with the work of serious scientists. This was it. The public was told repeatedly that something called "the scientific community" had affirmed the science beneath this inquiry. A Nobel Prize was bestowed (on a politician).
I don't think most scientists appreciate what has hit them. This isn't only about the credibility of global warming. For years, global warming and its advocates have been the public face of hard science. Most people could not name three other subjects they would associate with the work of serious scientists. This was it. The public was told repeatedly that something called "the scientific community" had affirmed the science beneath this inquiry. A Nobel Prize was bestowed (on a politician).
