Climategate and the "T"-word
We all know the "t"-word. Our President has used it many times, as did former UN Secretary General Annan. It's - all together now - transparency. Now the "t"-word is promised us in almost every campaign by politicians (and mega-bureaucrats like Kofi) and never delivered, so we're used to looking at it with a jaundiced eye from them. But scientists, scientists, they are the big brains, the honest ones, the ones who, unlike cheap pols, work for eternity, like Galileo, Copernicus, Einstein.
Anyway, they were, until Climategate came along. Here from the Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit blog is a breathtakingly short and simple illustration of the values of Dr. Phil Jones, Director of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, from whence all these emails and documents concerning global warming have been lifted.
Phil Jones, Dec 3, 2008:
About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little – if anything at all.
Phil Jones, Nov 24, 2009 Guardian
We’ve not deleted any emails or data here at CRU.
Oops. Forget the "T"-word. How about the "P"-word (prevarication)? Or the "BFL" word (big fat liar)?
Now look - I want to be clear. I don't necessarily disagree that anthropogenic global warming is a danger. I'm beginning to doubt it, but I certainly don't know. What's clear, however, is these scientists at CRU don't know (or aren't so sure) either. Otherwise they wouldn't have been so guarded, so deceptive, with their data (what remains of it) for so long. They would have been transparent and shared the data with the skeptics if they were so sure they were right. It's the scientific thing to do, as we all learned in grammar school, if you're serious about the truth.
But thus far our President and his crew, not to mention our friends at European Union and the UN, are going along as if this download never happened. It's full steam ahead to Copenhagen:
The United States, under pressure from other nations as one of the world's largest greenhouse-gas polluters, will present a target for reducing carbon dioxide emissions at next month's climate conference in Copenhagen, Obama administration officials said Monday.
The development came as the European Union urged the United States and China to deliver greenhouse gas emissions targets at the long-anticipated summit, saying their delays were hindering global efforts to curb climate change.
What's confusing here is that we all agree - or most of us- that pollution is bad. What we don't agree on, now more than ever, is the role of AWG, which is increasingly mysterious the more you read these documents. As Charlie Martin shows us, it's not just the emails, it's the data itself that is corrupt. We don't know what we know. But the world is poised to spend untold billions or trillions on that basis.
I happen to favor energy independence, was once a Sierra Club member (okay, I got sick of them) and currently drive a Prius - and still I think this stinks.
(btw, check out the Guardian interview with Jones: "Some of the emails probably had poorly chosen words and were sent in the heat of the moment, when I was frustrated. I do regret sending some of them. We've not deleted any emails or data here at CRU. I would never manipulate the data one bit - I would categorically deny that." Hint to Jones: Never use the word "categorically." It's a dead giveaway.)