And the warm-mongers aren’t happy about it.
[Update a few minutes later]
Environmentalists exposed as liars. I’m shocked, shocked I say.
[Update a few minutes later]
Here’s more on the apparent fraud at the Climate Research Unit.
The problem is that the files and emails seem just too good to be true. A number of files seem to be smoking guns — revealing how to resist Freedom of Information Act requests for their data (which would both be scientific misconduct and actually illegal); long-term marketing plans on how to push the climate-change agenda; and discussions of how to pressure peer-reviewed journals to stop accepting papers that disagree with the “accepted” view of global warming.
In other words, just what the skeptics have been suggesting for years. It seems just too neat, and we don’t have independent verification of where the files came from. Someone who is willing to hack might also be willing to create fakes.
But then, the whole package is very large — 63 megabytes — and seems to be very internally consistent. Several people have already corroborated a number of the emails as being ones they wrote or received. The package also includes substantial data and computer programs, which are being explored as this is being written.
The best we can say right now is that we should keep our eyes on this. If these files are eventually corroborated and verified, it is a bombshell indeed — evidence that there has been a literal conspiracy to push the anthropogenic climate change agenda far beyond the science.
I wish I could say that I was surprised. Actually, I am, a little. I wouldn’t have thought they’d be this blatant about it, but it’s been clear for years that this was being driven by a non-science agenda.
As noted in comments, Jerry Pournelle has some thoughts today:
sounds to me as if climatologists are now admitting they have not the faintest idea of what is going on. I have a remedy for them. Study the data and refine the models. Stop assuming you already know the answers and start looking for better models….
But that’s no fun. It doesn’t give them an excuse to implement socialism via the green door.
[Afternoon update]
Here is more from James Delingpole:
The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called “sceptical” view is now also the majority view.
Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.
But if the Hadley CRU scandal is true, it’s a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility which is never likely to recover.
What I find delicious about this is (as always) the toxic brew of self-righteousness and hypocrisy. I don’t want to hear anyone, ever again, tell me that it’s “just about the science.”
[Mid-afternoon update]
A lot of discussion over at Slashdot.
Europe has an economy of the same size as the US, and they produce less of their oil than we do. Of course, the reason they use less per capita then us is because those evil socialist countries made deliberate efforts to reduce their oil usage.
They also have a much more dense population with less transport needs. Not to mention slower economic growth and persistently high unemployment, partly due to their artificially high energy costs.
Yes, Chris; Venus 980,000ppm CO2 plus H2S rain plus a quarter AU closer to the sun, Earth 380ppm CO2. The relevance is staggering.
Correlation is not causation.
None was claimed. philw1776 said that things were fine for animals the last time we had lots of CO2 in the atmosphere; I was pointing out that those animals were living on a planet that we humans would find unrecognizable.
They also have a much more dense population with less transport needs.
Some European countries (e.g. Sweden and Finland) have even lower population density than the U.S., and yet still use less energy per-capita. I don’t believe there’s much correlation between population density and energy use inside the U.S. California uses half as much electricity per $ of economic output as the national average, and it certainly isn’t because of high population density.
philw1776 said that things were fine for animals the last time we had lots of CO2 in the atmosphere; I was pointing out that those animals were living on a planet that we humans would find unrecognizable.
Which did not negate what he said.
I don’t believe there’s much correlation between population density and energy use inside the U.S. California uses half as much electricity per $ of economic output as the national average, and it certainly isn’t because of high population density.
California uses electricity for its transport needs? Who knew?
Also, while CA doesn’t have a high average population density, that’s only because it’s such a large state. it’s very high were most of its population lives.
Also, while CA doesn’t have a high average population density, that’s only because it’s such a large state. it’s very high where most of its population lives.
That’s true of the U.S. as a whole — where people actually live, the density is high. There are more than 20 states (including California) with population densities greater than Europe’s. New Jersey has ten times the population density of Europe. But the residents of California, New Jersey and those other states still use more energy per capita than Europeans.
Population density isn’t the reason Americans use more energy.
None was claimed. philw1776 said that things were fine for animals the last time we had lots of CO2 in the atmosphere; I was pointing out that those animals were living on a planet that we humans would find unrecognizable.
16 million years isn’t that long ago. We’d find it recognizable.
Bill Maron – actually, Venus is quite relevant since it’s twice as hot as Mercury yet farther from the sun. CO2 in any quantity is a greenhouse gas. The issue is what quantity would yield an acceptable Terran climate.
Karl Hallowell – yes, we’d recognize a desert when we saw it. I’m not sure we’d recognize Iowa as a desert.
You are also forgetting an atmosphere 93 times the pressure of Earth. That pressure creates a lot of heat also. So let’s recap. CO2 levels 2500 times that of ours and atmospheric pressure 93 times that of ours. You might as well ask why ants don’t live like us.
Bill Maron – what you are forgetting is that Earth and Venus started out very much alike. Venus suffered a runaway greenhouse effect, which percolated all the water out. You are also forgetting Mars, which had a lack of greenhouse effect, and now sees CO2 freeze out as snow in the winter.
Bill Maron – what you are forgetting is that Earth and Venus started out very much alike.
Chris, Venus has twice the solar energy influx of the Earth. They did not start out much alike. Mars has a much lower mass which contributes to atmosphere loss *and* about half the solar energy influx of Earth.
Darn those Venusians for runing their planet a billion years…Oh wait.
Karl and Bill – runaway CO2 greenhouse effects do not have to be man-made. In Earth’s case, the most logical explanation for the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 is man-made.
My point, which you both are not-so-cleverly dodging, is that CO2 gas is in fact a greenhouse gas. What we are arguing about is the effect in small amounts. And from a planetary perspective, 5 or 6 degrees of temperature change is small beer.
From a human perspective, it can be huge.
My point, which you both are not-so-cleverly dodging, is that CO2 gas is in fact a greenhouse gas. What we are arguing about is the effect in small amounts. And from a planetary perspective, 5 or 6 degrees of temperature change is small beer.
We have to understand the effects first. The obvious one is that the linkage between human produced CO2 and global warming is not understood properly (IMHO). Acting in ignorance with so much of the world’s economy at state is a recipe for disaster.
From a human perspective, it can be huge.
Or it might not be huge. I believe the concern is exaggerated. Even in some of the worst scenarios (like one I heard where 70% of Earth’s population had to move (due to rising sea level and some vague magical effect that makes land “uninhabitable” merely because it is a little warmer) over a number of decades) the problems simply aren’t that pressing. People naturally move especially in a mobile society like that of the US.