Climate science and Climategate

Insights for the Future from the Change of Climate in Copenhagen (Part #5)

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx ]

The much-publicized incident of the hacked e-mails amongst climate change scientists, which was so influential in undermining the credibility of arguments in the Copenhagen debate, is summarized in the entry on the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, in Wikipedia -- itself notably subject to controversy regarding manipulative editing. Other relevant documents are to be found at Climategate Document Database.

A12-part set of documents has been prepared by The Guardian (Climate wars: special investigation):

1. Battle over climate data turned into war between scientists and sceptics
2. How the 'climategate' scandal is bogus and based on climate sceptics' lies
3. Hockey stick graph took pride of place in IPCC report, despite doubts
4. Climate change debate overheated after sceptic grasped 'hockey stick'
5. Changing weather posts in China led to accusations of scientific fraud
6. Emails reveal strenuous efforts by climate scientists to 'censor' their critics
7. Victory for openness as IPCC climate scientist opens up lab doors
8. Climate scientists contradicted spirit of openness by rejecting information requests
9. Climate scientists withheld Yamal data despite warnings from senior colleagues
10. Search for hacker may lead police back to East Anglia's climate research unit
11. 'Climategate' was PR disaster that could bring healthy reform of peer review
12. Climate science emails cannot destroy argument that world is warming

Other summaries are to be found in:

• Renfrey Clarke. 'Climategate' emails: Scientists defend science. Green Left, 28 November 2009
• James Delingpole. Climategate: the corruption of Wikipedia. The Telegraph, 22 December 2009
• James Delingpole. Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'? The Telegraph, 20 November 2009
• Lord Monckton. Summary of Climategate and its issues. Watt's Up With That, 30 November 2009

To the extent that it is appropriate to assume that an objective, rational approach is still a reasonable possibility for 21st century science and governance, issues meriting consideration might include:

• Efforts to review the science and its models, as with those of Richard Moore (Climate science: observations vs. models, 8 January 2010)
  
  
• Consideration of the justification of the climate science community and IPCC in failing to give "scientific" attention to a problematic fourth component of the Kaya Identity basic to the IPCC climate change case made in Copenhagen (Well Sharp, Getting climate policy back on course with the Kaya Identity. 8 December 2009). The component in question was population about which the IPCC report declared: 'Admittedly, there are many possible combinations of the four Kaya identity components, but with the scope and legitimacy of population control subject to ongoing debate, the remaining two technology-oriented factors, energy and carbon intensities, have to bear the main burden...'. How untrustworthy can "science" become in the light of such explicit negligence -- even if such factors are only mentioned in passing? Perhaps climate scientists could be inspired by marine biologists -- "scientific wailing" rather than "scientific whaling"? The problematic use of single metrics, including the Kaya Identity, is discussed elsewhere (Uncritical Strategic Dependence on Little-known Metrics, 2009).
  
  
• Beyond the mandate of the natural sciences, "scientific" consideration could legitimately be given by social scientists to the challenges of more inclusive climate change debate and its cognitive challenges, as argued elsewhere (Overpopulation Debate as a Psychosocial Hazard: development of safety guidelines from handling other hazardous materials, 2009).
  
  
• Recognition of the track record of inefficacy in delivering solutions framed by global agreement and the possibility of more realistic response to future challenges, as discussed elsewhere (Recognizing the Psychosocial Boundaries of Remedial Action: constraints on ensuring a safe operating space for humanity, 2009).

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx ]