More like this
Public turns sceptical as climate debate gets nasty
Top climategate scientist admits suicidal thoughts while more pressure piles on UN climate chief
The row over the validity of mainstream climate change science is getting nasty following another weekend of revelations and accusations - including an explosive interview in the Sunday Times given by Professor Phil Jones, head of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU).
Prof Jones says he has considered suicide since the so-called 'climategate' row blew up, agreeing with his interviewer's comparisons with David Kelly, the government scientist who did kill himself after he was revealed as the source of a BBC report that claimed Tony Blair's notorious Iraq dossier was "sexed up".
"I did think about it, yes," said Jones. "About suicide. I thought about it several times, but I think I've got past that stage now."
Jones's emails are the most damning of those leaked by a hacker in November; they appear to show the professor suggesting that his colleagues ought to withhold data being requested through Freedom of Information laws. Jones's defence is that the requests were coming from climate change sceptics whose sole purpose was to harass him and and hinder his department's work.
The toll on Jones's health is undeniable: he has lost a stone in weight and takes beta blockers to get him through the day, and sleeping pills to get him through the night. He has received multiple death threats – including two in the past week, after Britain's deputy information commissioner found the CRU in breach of Freedom of Information regulations.
Jones claims provocation. He believes climate change sceptics were running a concerted campaign to waste his and his colleagues' time by lodging multiple Freedom of Information requests. Only 22 per cent of the FOI requests could be definitely said to be British in origin. "They wanted to slow us down," he told the Sunday Times.
Jones knows who was responsible - Stephen McIntyre, a former minerals prospector who runs the climate sceptic blog, ClimateAudit.org. McIntyre denies he was wasting the CRU's time: "Everything that I've done in this, I've done in good faith," he has said.
McIntyre's blog was among the first to link to the leaked emails when they were hacked in November. In the United States, an inquiry into climategate by Penn State University has largely cleared Dr Michael Mann, one of the non-CRU scientists implicated by the leaked emails, of deleting or suppressing emails and data.
But McIntyre has criticised the way in which the inquiry was conducted, particularly that only two, friendly, scientists were interviewed besides Mann and that "they did not examine any of Mann's correspondence that was not already in the public record".
McIntyre is painted as a figure who is very hot on procedural issues, but who is less adept at picking holes in the science of climate change. Professor Jones may have tripped up over the FoI requests, notes the Sunday Times, but nobody has been able to find a hole in the science behind the CRU's assertion that the current climate change is caused by human activities.
One body whose science is all over the place, however, is the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Its head, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, is still reeling from 'glaciergate' - the discovery that an influential 2007 IPCC report falsely claimed that the Himalayas could be glacier-free by 2035. Dr Pachauri was criticised for refusing to apologise for the error, telling the Guardian: "You can't expect me to be personally responsible for every word in a 3,000 page report."
Now, the Sunday Times is taking him to task for a claim in the 2007 IPCC report that claims climate change could cut the yield of north African rain-fed crops by up to 50 per cent by 2020. Professor Chris Field, the new lead author of the IPCC's climate impacts team, agrees that there is no evidence to back up this claim.
The Sunday Telegraph, which regularly calls for Dr Pachauri's resignation, also published further claims yesterday that the IPCC had used unpublished evidence - "grey literature" - to put together its 2007 report and cast doubt on the accuracy of a diagram demonstrating the potential for electricity generation from wave power.
And last week the Dutch government called for an explanation from the IPCC as to why it claimed in the 2007 report that half the Netherlands was below sea level. Dutch environment ministry spokesman Trimo Vallaart said he thought the IPCC had added the actual area below sea level - 26 per cent - to the area threatened by river flooding - 29 per cent - to get its erroneous figure.
The criticism of Dr Pachauri hasn't been limited to his science. He has also been ridiculed for his 'steamy' novel, Return to Almora, published last month.
The constant stream of accusations is taking its toll on the reputation of climate science. A BBC poll at the weekend found that the proportion of the British public that rejects the reality of climate change, while still very much a minority, has grown since climategate blew up in November. Back then, only 15 per cent said they did not think global warming was happening. That proportion is now 25 per cent. ·
Comments are now closed on this article
Comments
Peter Simmons "That's why none of them, including McIntyre, can't come up with even a half-baked scientific theory as an alternative" - you don't need a theory to explain something that doesn't exist. Nothing going on in climate is outside normal natural variation.
"The hacking of UEA is now believed to be the work of a government dirty tricks team" - believed by you, maybe, but you have no evidence whatsoever, like you have none for AGW.
"Interesting that no other scientific issue is questioned, attacked, denied and ridiculed like this one. Wonder why theta is! How about disputing the Earth is round?" - if you propound a silly theory, for which there is no evidence, such as AGW, then of course LOADS of people are going to question it, just as they would if you tried to convince us that the earth is flat.
By the way, here is what Dr Andrew Lacis, a contributor to the IPCC AR4 report said about the executive summary. Check out his scores of papers published in the peer-reviewed literature from 1966-2010 http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/alacis.html "There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department. The points being made are made arbitrarily with legal sounding caveats without having established any foundation or basis in fact. The Executive Summary seems to be a political statement that is only designed to annoy greenhouse skeptics. Wasn't the IPCC Assessment Report intended to be a scientific document that would merit solid backing from the climate science community - instead of forcing many climate scientists into having to agree with greenhouse skeptic criticisms that this is indeed a report with a clear and obvious political agenda. Attribution can not happen until understanding has been clearly demonstrated. Once the facts of climate change have been established and understood, attribution will become self-evident to all. The Executive Summary as it stands is beyond redemption and should simply be deleted."
"...the proportion of the British public that rejects the reality of climate change, while still very much a minority...is now 25 per cent." What you neglected to report is the percentage who (as I do) believe that climate change is natural and not of anthropogenic cause. Adding together all those who deny climate change or do not hold to anthropogenic causes we arrive at 74%. Only 26% believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change. By your own definition, therefore (since 26% and 25% are very similar), those who believe in AGW/ACC are "very much a minority".
Of course the climate is warming, and cooling, and warming. That is what climate does. Remember the Ice Ages you were taught about in school? Well, they happen regularly and that is climate change if ever there was. But of course no one, not even the most fanatic Climate Change Believer has ever suggested that CO2 was responsible (and obviously it wasn't) - because man was not around then, only natural CO2, and this is all about scolding the rich western polluters and then raising their taxes - economists have long called this the 'sin tax' strategy. Only the correct theory of climate change will make all this scareology and taxology go away - Svensmark's cosmoclimatology theory. It relates the relative cooling and warming effect of clouds to the amount of galactic cosmic rays reaching the earth, particularly muons reaching below the 3000m level. This is regulated mostly by the magnetic field of the sun (magnetosphere), which varies considerably. Sunspots are indicative of a strong magnetosphere, hence the old relation seen between sunspots and wheat harvests by the astronomer William Herschel two centuries ago. So, one correct theory will eventually kill all the wrong ones, but it won't be politically correct when it does, as it is not now. Truth never does seem to be politically correct.
The article says of the emails,
"... they appear to show the professor suggesting that his colleagues ought to withhold data..." Appear! Have you not read them. They even say the would destroy data rather than turn it over.
The article says of McIntyre, "but who is less adept at picking holes in the science of climate change. " Actually he is quite able to find gapping holes but in order to do so the author, Jones et al, must, in proper scientific format, provide that which they refused to provide. McIntyre asked for the data and model programs Jones used to verify of refute the results. The peer review process requires they be turned over. Jones refused then claims McIntyre cannot find any holes.
If jones believed in AGW he would be looking for someone to show errors since the consequences are so great. Example, If jones calculated that an asteroid was going to hit earth he would put his data on the web so others could confirm of show errors.
What tripe Jones spews.
A BBC poll of 1000 people is not any kind of scientific indication of what the whole population thinks, statistics serve the purposes of those conducting the poll, not reality. The issue is anyway not one of opinion, especially the ignorant opinions that are broadcast regularly by the deniers; there's sceptical and then there's downright denial based on nothing. That's why none of them, including McIntyre, can't come up with even a half-baked scientific theory as an alternative to what thousands of scientists have offered along with a wealth of evidence. That's why the morons will be along here soon, like flies round a dog turd, to paste their lusicrously challenged 'claims' and unscientific twaddle, it's what they do since none of them are scientists. The hacking of UEA is now believed to be the work of a government dirty tricks teams - most probably Saudi Arabia which has most to lose with a reduction of oil use. Not 'a hacker' but a team of professional hackers, carefully timed to coincide with Copenhagen. That's not freedom of information, that's deliberate sabotage. And the silly hordes of denialistas - most of whom flunked science in school if their pathetic postings are anything to go by - lap up everything served to them by those with an interest in muddying the argument. These people just don't want to give up their toys and grow up, they want to cvontinue to act irresponsibly like kids, which most of them were until quite recently, and some of them may still be given the juvenile nature of their posts. Interesting that no other scientific issue is questioned, attacked, denied and ridiculed like this one. Wonder why theta is! How about disputing the Earth is round? How about evolution, plenty of inbred epsilons in the US who deny that. How about other branches of science? Nope, just this issue. Interesting that something which means we have to change our ways gets so much oppostion.
TBH More sceptical about the supposed suicide of Dr David Kelly that Climate Change.
"...the proportion of the British public that rejects the reality of climate change, while still very much a minority...is now 25 per cent." A quarter, what a tiny minority! What you neglected to report is the percentage who (as I do) believe that climate change is natural and not of anthropogenic cause. Adding together all those who deny climate change or do not hold to anthropogenic causes we arrive at 74%. Only 26% believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change. By your own definition, therefore (since 26% and 25% are very similar), those who believe in AGW/ACC are "very much a minority". Soon that proportion will decline even more as the AGW/ACC scam is a busted flush. It was always based on lies.