The leak of emails and documents from the Climatic Studies Unit at the University of East Anglia [UEA] is causing something of a stir, especially among climate change deniers, who are clutching at the findings like manna from heaven. Meanwhile, back at the lab, their opponents continue to treat them like a mantra from heaven. But what do they really amount to?
Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at UEA, denies anything untoward is going on and dismisses as “ludicrous” the idea that anyone would manipulate the data. Kevin Trenberth of the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research is equally adamant: “I’m appalled at the very selective use of the emails, and the fact they’ve been taken out of context. It is right before the Copenhagen debate; I‘m sure that is no coincidence.” How these scientists could benefit from cooking the information – bar receiving funding for research – is far from clear. What price an academic reputation for hoaxing?
The whole climate change debate pitches easily into two camps: one with vested interests and another with vested interests. One benefits from funding into man-made climate change research and the other manages to carry on making loads of lucre, much of it filthy, without having to bear the cost or inconvenience of installing expensive anti-pollution measures. So who is right?
One look at the "offending emails" reveals nothing substantive but it does make you wish that the scientists involved would release their figures and findings under the Freedom of Information Act. If they’ve nothing to hide, then the hacker and the skeptics are going to look like idiotic conspiracy theorists. If not, then at least we’ll know (again) that there is a genuine basis for their hypothesis, which is what they’ve said all along. If neither is true, then we can at least take discomfort in the fact that the Earth is getting warmer without our help.
The problem with the climate change lobby is that it brooks no counter-argument and as such lends itself to aggressive attempts to discredit its data. The oft-repeated Thatcher-style nonsense - “there is no alternative” – is not, nor has it ever been an adequate response to any subject that deserves sensible well-argued debate.
Man-made climate change, whether true or not, is based on a hypothesis which relies on data and observation. It stands or falls on that data. There is prima facie evidence that the Earth is getting warmer and there is serious supportive evidence to show that, at best, we are not helping.
The disappearance of ice sheets; glaciers; coastal inundation; higher than normal mean temperatures; reduced and increased ranges for plants, animals and insects; deforestation; desertification, warming seas etc. do tend to point one way. Whether we are exacerbating an existing trend or not through our activities will in the end be an entirely superfluous argument.
The real questions are: 1) Is it happening? 2) What can/are we going to do about it? If it comes to it and you are sitting like some latter-day King Canute in your factor 50+ sunscreen up to your neck in water, isn’t the idea of who was responsible for global warming academic and a matter of profound indifference? If I’m not mistaken, this is precisely where the argument started.
Last updated: 25 November 2009, 13:17
The links provided allow you to bookmark this page into your favourite social media website. For users with JavaScript disabled copy and paste the URL from the address bar into your chosen social bookmarking site.