web analytics

Crock of the Week – ‘Climategate’

Written By: - Date published: 3:29 pm, June 26th, 2010 - 24 comments
Categories: climate change - Tags:

Peter Sinclair in Crock of the week uses some old classic movie and TV footage to debunk the ‘climategate’ myth. Quite simply this hack of the e-mails hasn’t changed any of the science of climate change and is as ineffectual as most of the anti-science inquisition has been over the last century.

A letter by a large number of scientists in the US National Academy of Science in the AAAS Science magazine (PDF at Science or web) quoted in the video sums up the essential stupidity of the denier/skeptic positions perfectly.

There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet.

But when some conclusions have been thoroughly and deeply tested, questioned, and examined, they gain the status of ‘well-established theories’ and are often spoken of as ‘facts.’

Climate change now falls into this category: There is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.

Quite simply if you want absolute certainty in science, then you are delusional. It is not a faith and if you want certainty then you need to seek a place of worship.

When new evidence comes along challenging or even disproving a theory in science, then the theory is adjusted. The problem for the climate change deniers and skeptics (CCDs) is that they have proved to unable to find any evidence that causes issues for the theory of human induced climate change. So they resort to smear tactics and conspiracy theories like ‘climategate’ instead.

It has nothing to do with science and more to do with how ineffectual the CCDs are at disproving a working well-established theory.

Pretty pathetic really.

  • Wikipedia has a pretty good summary on the whole of the ‘climategate’. Well worth reading.
  • For a full playlist of the Crock of the Week videos – use this link.

hat-tip: joe90 in comments

24 comments on “Crock of the Week – ‘Climategate’ ”

  1. Croc 1

    Great post.

  2. Andy 2

    The climate gate issue was primarily concerned with Steve McIntyre’s “hockey stick” investigations.

    The climategate issue may have been exploited for political purposes, but Peter Sinclair completely misses the context of climategate and uses it for his own agenda to slur “climate deniers”

    I’d recommend reading “The Hockey Stick Illusion” by A W Montford. This gives a very readable account of this affair. The bulk of the book was written before the email leak/hack, and the last chapter reviews the emails in the context of the previous work.

    It is possible to accept that there are issues with the science, in particular the Hockey Stick, and still be aware that continued emissions of greenhouse gas emissions may cause us problems.

    This, I believe, is McIntyre’s position. To label him “anti-science” is in my view, the complete opposite of the truth.

    • lprent 2.1

      Ummm the problem with the ‘hockey-stick’ as far as I can see is that some CCDs are far too euro-centric. They seem to have this rather obsessive fascination with the ‘medieval warm period’ and ‘mini-ice-age’ that Lamb had in the very first IPCC report. Both of which were regional northern European events. As far as I can see most of the dislike of the hockey stick is because when you look at climate over the last couple of thousand years globally, these rather minor regional events disappear.

      In effect, the first IPCC report made people realize that there wasn’t much recent (ie the last couple of thousand years) tempature data globally. Lamb compiled most of his report from data available in SE England. Hardly a global source. So there were a number of surveys using various means to detirmine near term global temperature data.

      Mann was merely the first. The ‘hockey-stick’ effect has subsequently been reproduced in every survey using multiple different methods. From what I understand of Montfords book he ignored all of the subsequent work after Mann did his work more than a decade ago.

      The CCDs appear to be lost in the past a few decades ago and still think that Lambs graph is still valid. Pretty damn thick as far as I can see.

      In fact I’ll find the Crock of the Week on exactly that topic and post it.

      • Andy 2.1.1

        I presume you haven’t read Montford’s book?

        The issues are not around the MWP, but around the rather dubious statistical techniques used by Mann

        • lprent 2.1.1.1

          …around the rather dubious statistical techniques used by Mann.

          Which the US National Academy of Science went through with a fine tooth comb in 2006, said that there were some issues with methodology, but that it was substantially correct. Have you read that report? Far more substantial than Montfords book.

          The suggestions from the NAS report about methodology were incorporated in the 2007 release of the Mann study released in 2007. Have you read that?

          The ‘hockey-stick’ scenario has been supported by every study done in the last decade. Have you looked at those?

          Nope – you prefer to rely on someone that has never worked in science. Has qualifications in a completely unrelated area and who sells books via controversy.

          Montford graduated from the University of St Andrews with a degree in chemistry,[2] and became a chartered accountant before moving into science publishing.

          You seem like a well-meaning fool.. Perhaps you should read more widely.

          • Andy 2.1.1.1.1

            You seem like a well-meaning fool

            It doesn’t take long does it?

            My key point was that climategate was about the hockey stick affair, in particular McIntyre’s FOI requests to UEA.

            Sinclair’s video completely ignored that fact and chose to use it to attack his favorite enemy, the nefarious “climate denier” This is a blatant propaganda exercise.

            Who is Peter Sinclair? Well, he is not a climate scientist. He is an “independent film producer”, and quite happy “debunking” the “evil climate denier” using ad hominem arguments and downright lies.

            Anthony Watts takes particular objection here

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/30/on-climate-comedy-copyrights-and-cinematography/#more-9650

            • lprent 2.1.1.1.1.1

              So what you are saying is that you prefer to ignore the supporting studies that come to the same conclusions as Mann ? Instead you prefer to look at a paper that was released in 1998.

              That didn’t take long to drop from science to sleazy politically based smears, did it?

              Typical CCDs response. Avoiding the issue

              • Andy

                Typical CCDs response. Avoiding the issue

                My argument was that Sinclair was misrepresenting ClimateGate., and that Sinclair is a professional propagandist, not a scientist.

                Nothing more, nothing less.

                • lprent

                  How did he misrepresent ‘climategate’? The argument that was being run was that the ‘climategate’ emails invalidated the argument about human induced climate change. Sinclair and his advisers have clearly showed it didn’t. A moments thought would have made it obvious that this wasn’t the case. ‘Climategate’ was the selected picking of some private correspondence between a few scientists. There are tens of thousands of people working in and around this field. The CCDs appear to have no real sense of scale or proportion to have made the arguments that I’ve seen them write.

                  Sure Peter Sinclair isn’t a scientist – he makes no claim to be one. He is quite clear in the videos that he is relying on advice from people who work in the field. He is skilled in communications (and IMO virtually no scientists are). However to date I haven’t picked him up on anything significant that isn’t the part of the current body of knowledge in the field of earth sciences.

                  Moreover, he is quite clear that he is simply countering the arguments from the CCDs propagandists – who do misrepresent the available science continuously and all of the time.

                  I notice that you simply never address any of the issues that either he raised in the video or that I raised in the post. Instead you keep trying to divert into irrelevancies. Probably because you seem lack the capability to understand the science yourself? I suspect so

      • sagenz 2.1.2

        Oh Lynn
        Andy is quite correct. In addition there is a substantial and growing body of evidence suggesting the MWP was in fact global. Including evidence from 2 sites of stalactites in New Zealand. That inconvenient science is ignored and suppressed because of the evidentiary impact it has on the hockey stick and their ilk.

        You only need to take an honest look at climate graphs over tens of thousands of years to realise how small our impact is.

        • lprent 2.1.2.1

          Yes, there is. Regional effects have wider effects – just look at el nino.

          However the North Atlantic MWP effect is far less pronounced in any of the other couple of sites that show an effect, and also appear to be local effects. Global climate is, well, global… You’d expect to see the same effect appear in more than a few sites at the same time. The dating doesn’t appear to correlate more than roughly in the same period – like the NZ stuff appears to have more than a 50 year difference at the peak effect (if I understand it correctly).

          Moreover, the stuff I’ve looked at shows that there are numerous regional variations in various places at various times where temperatures vary from the global ‘norm’. Perhaps you should look at those as being significant and start looking for correlations? Coincidence will almost certainly turn up.

          You probably need some more stats training to understand the significance of small sample sets perhaps?

          • really 2.1.2.1.1

            Why do you always try and belittle people who disagree with you Lynn?

            • lprent 2.1.2.1.1.1

              I’m not that interested in people reiterating bullshit. I usually explain and then ‘belittle’. It encourages people in discussion with me to lift their game. It makes it more interesting for me.

              However you are mistaken in these cases Perhaps you haven’t seen me when I intentionally set out to belittle people?

        • Andy 2.1.2.2

          Andy is quite correct

          Actually, I never made any comment about the MWP at all, thanks

  3. Ag 3

    Quite simply this hack of the e-mails hasn’t changed any of the science of climate change and is as ineffectual as most of the anti-science inquisition has been over the last century.

    I beg to differ. The point of the email hack was to discredit climate science and the climate change theory in the minds of voters. In that respect it has succeeded beyond the hackers’ wildest dreams, since the prevailing political view is now distrust of climate science.

    I do not know what is wrong with liberals/progressives. They still believe that the game is about winning on the facts, and do not understand why winning on the facts does not mean winning politically.

    They will continue to lose as long as they believe this. Contemporary conservatives are postmodern politicians. They don’t give a fig for science or rationality unless the occasion suits them to do so. Will the liberals wake up to this and try something new instead of the old failed “try to win the argument” strategy?

    I don’t think so.

    • lprent 3.1

      It just means that they won a PR skirmish. That has a relatively short-term effect on the time scale of climate change issues. Even the rapid climate change we’re talking about here are really only visible over decade long cycles.

      However it also meant that it woke the rather lethargic scientific community up. They have largely been ignoring the CCDs prior to this. However this hack and subsequent exploitation of the e-mails for PR purposes has alienated virtually every person I know in science. They are now getting a lot more active and aware of the PR side of the issue. They’re also setting up the types of cross-communications required across science groups to forestall a similar episode happening in the future. It became quite clear that the CCDs weren’t interested in the science which had been the presumption previously. They were only interested in the politics.

      Quite simply the CCDs mishandled it. They stopped arguing even vaguely coherently on the science, and started purely in to pure luddite McCarthyism. The political effect now is that they will be treated as being luddites which means that the CCDs ‘wiggle-room’ of tolerance by scientists just reduced dramatically.

      I think that ‘climategate’ probably just lost the ‘war’ for the CCDs.

      • sagenz 3.1.1

        Black truly is white for you Lynn.

        Gore and the IPCC have been shown to have played fast and loose with the science. Massive exaggeration of the impact has been revealed for what it is. Copenhagen failed because most politicians realised that. America and China will not take the suggested action because there is no need. The general and appropriate move towards energy efficiency and alternative fuels will continue.

        • lprent 3.1.1.1

          What does Al Gore have to do with it? Some politician?

          The IPCC started from a base in 1990 with virtually no coherent global data and has steadily been putting together the available evidence in the last 20 years. It is incomplete and because of the IPCC processes almost unbearably scientifically conservative.

          Sure there are some issues with the descriptive materials outside of the science area looking at possible effects. But a lot of that is social and economic analysis, and is as anecdotal as those disciplines often are.

          In report of many thousands of pages, there are sure to be mistakes and errata. It is the nature of the beast just as luddites prefer to ignore what is correvt and want to concentrate of vanishing small sections that are wrong..

          However the first part of the IPCC reports are the available science at the time of the report being compiled. It is the best picture of what is conservatively known. The overall picture is alarming.

      • Ag 3.1.2

        The CCDs have always been interested solely in the politics of the issue. That much has been evident from the very beginning. All they have to do to win is make the average person think that there is something a bit fishy about the behaviour of scientists or that there is some dispute. The “debate” simply does not penetrate the minds of the general public to a greater degree than that. Scientists holding up graphs or issuing proclamations is going to do nothing. McCarthyism works. It just didn’t work for McCarthy.

        Climate change is like immunization or evolution. Sure, you can convince the rational people of it, but there’s a whole heap of people out there who will believe all sorts of lunacy come what may, and they will resist being forced by governments to do something about it. Science and rationality do not play the role in public life that scientists and other academics would like.

        • barry 3.1.2.1

          Actually McCarthyism did work fabulously well for McCarthy, for a time. It will also stop working for CCDs as they lose credibility in decision making circles.

          The problem for people like ACT, and the BRT is that by nailing their colours to the CCD mast, they might gain in the short term, but when the time comes to do something they will have less input because they have shown themselves to be cranks.

          As for climategate, the “substantive” objections are unravelling and only the cranks believe there is anything wrong. The main thing learned is that scientists are human, and make the same sort of petty, snide comments as everyone else.

  4. Bill 4

    Crosses my mind that historically, science has served business.

    But that climate change is pitting the servant against it’s former master. And the master has the resources to sell a business friendly and anti-science message.

    I noticed and was surprised through the week that Naomi Kline had climbed aboard this anti-science bandwagon in relation to the Gulf oil spill. Apparently, the spill was caused by science abandoning the precautionary principle. Nothing to do with BP and others seeking profit. And no question was entered into with regards commercial pressures being brought to bear on scientists or engineers or others in ways that make the precautionary principle appear as an obstacle rather than as a touch stone of common sense.

    And you notice how it is widely taken as read that climate change is a threat to society…a rather nebulous concept? That climate change and scientific findings are not ever framed as a threat to profit seeking business practices? Which all leaves business quietly chuffing and chugging away in a manufactured blind spot where it will never be identified as the principle problem behind both climate change and social disintegration?

    Poor populations, who are already being subjected to the pressures of enclosure and who contribute ‘nothing’ to climate change are viewed as more of a problem. What with their desire for cars and gadgets and air travel etc. Thing is, it is business that drives enclosure. And enclosure ( not climate change) will compel people to burn oil to get to work; and at work. And the advertising arm of business will convince populations throughout the world that the products flowing from all that burned oil are essential and necessary. And it is the process of enclosure that leaves societies fragmented and adrift in seas of dependency inducing market dynamics and their individuals hooked on perto-fixes just to stay alive…to grow, package, transport, store or simply afford to buy the food that used to be grown for if not exactly free, then next to nothing.

    But for ever increasing numbers of people…hundreds upon hundreds of millions…there was a time when there was a dream of buying the fridge and the oven and the TV and the whole nine yards of glitzy ‘must have’ package…and then as that possibility slipped away a temptation to stow away in a container or in the undercarriage of an aeroplane to get to the places where all the people have that stuff. And finally just physical hunger and endless days scavenging through the detritus of business activity hankering with nostalgia for the ‘good old days’ of naive desires.

Links to post

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Worsening housing crisis must prompt action
    A growing public housing waiting list and continued increase of house prices must be urgently addressed by Government, Green Party Co-leader Marama Davidson said today. ...
    16 hours ago
  • Twenty highlights of 2020
    As we welcome in the new year, our focus is on continuing to keep New Zealanders safe and moving forward with our economic recovery. There’s a lot to get on with, but before we say a final goodbye to 2020, here’s a quick look back at some of the milestones ...
    3 weeks ago

  • Jobs for Nature funding will create training and employment opportunities
    A major investment to tackle wilding pines in Mt Richmond will create jobs and help protect the area’s unique ecosystems, Biosecurity Minister Damien O’Connor says. The Mt Richmond Forest Park has unique ecosystems developed on mineral-rich geology, including taonga plant species found nowhere else in the country. “These special plant ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Pre-departure testing extended to all passengers to New Zealand
    To further protect New Zealand from COVID-19, the Government is extending pre-departure testing to all passengers to New Zealand except from Australia, Antarctica and most Pacific Islands, COVID-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins said today. “The change will come into force for all flights arriving in New Zealand after 11:59pm (NZT) on Monday ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Bay Cadets learn skills to protect environment
    Bay Conservation Cadets launched with first intake Supported with $3.5 million grant Part of $1.245b Jobs for Nature programme to accelerate recover from Covid Cadets will learn skills to protect and enhance environment Environment Minister David Parker today welcomed the first intake of cadets at the launch of the Bay ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Cook Islanders to resume travel to New Zealand
    The Prime Minister of New Zealand Jacinda Ardern and the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands Mark Brown have announced passengers from the Cook Islands can resume quarantine-free travel into New Zealand from 21 January, enabling access to essential services such as health. “Following confirmation of the Cook Islands’ COVID ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Supporting communities and landowners to grow employment opportunities
    Jobs for Nature funding is being made available to conservation groups and landowners to employ staff and contractors in a move aimed at boosting local biodiversity-focused projects, Conservation Minister Kiritapu Allan has announced. It is estimated some 400-plus jobs will be created with employment opportunities in ecology, restoration, trapping, ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    7 days ago
  • Border exception for some returning international tertiary students
    The Government has approved an exception class for 1000 international tertiary students, degree level and above, who began their study in New Zealand but were caught offshore when border restrictions began. The exception will allow students to return to New Zealand in stages from April 2021. “Our top priority continues ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    7 days ago
  • Tiwai deal gives time for managed transition
    Today’s deal between Meridian and Rio Tinto for the Tiwai smelter to remain open another four years provides time for a managed transition for Southland. “The deal provides welcome certainty to the Southland community by protecting jobs and incomes as the region plans for the future. The Government is committed ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    7 days ago
  • New member for APEC Business Advisory Council
    Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has appointed Anna Curzon to the APEC Business Advisory Council (ABAC). The leader of each APEC economy appoints three private sector representatives to ABAC. ABAC provides advice to leaders annually on business priorities. “ABAC helps ensure that APEC’s work programme is informed by business community perspectives ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Govt’s careful economic management recognised
    The Government’s prudent fiscal management and strong policy programme in the face of the COVID-19 global pandemic have been acknowledged by the credit rating agency Fitch. Fitch has today affirmed New Zealand’s local currency rating at AA+ with a stable outlook and foreign currency rating at AA with a positive ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Additional actions to keep COVID-19 out of NZ
    The Government is putting in place a suite of additional actions to protect New Zealand from COVID-19, including new emerging variants, COVID-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins said today. “Given the high rates of infection in many countries and evidence of the global spread of more transmissible variants, it’s clear that ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • 19 projects will clean up and protect waterways
    $36 million of Government funding alongside councils and others for 19 projects Investment will clean up and protect waterways and create local jobs Boots on the ground expected in Q2 of 2021 Funding part of the Jobs for Nature policy package A package of 19 projects will help clean up ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • New Zealand Government acknowledges 175th anniversary of Battle of Ruapekapeka
    The commemoration of the 175th anniversary of the Battle of Ruapekapeka represents an opportunity for all New Zealanders to reflect on the role these conflicts have had in creating our modern nation, says Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage Kiri Allan. “The Battle at Te Ruapekapeka Pā, which took ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Better care for babies with tongue-tie
    Babies born with tongue-tie will be assessed and treated consistently under new guidelines released by the Ministry of Health, Associate Minister of Health Dr Ayesha Verrall announced today. Around 5% to 10% of babies are born with a tongue-tie, or ankyloglossia, in New Zealand each year. At least half can ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Prisoner disorder event at Waikeria Prison over
    The prisoner disorder event at Waikeria Prison is over, with all remaining prisoners now safely and securely detained, Corrections Minister Kelvin Davis says. The majority of those involved in the event are members of the Mongols and Comancheros. Five of the men are deportees from Australia, with three subject to ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • Pre-departure COVID-19 test for travellers from the UK and the US from 15 January
    Travellers from the United Kingdom or the United States bound for New Zealand will be required to get a negative test result for COVID-19 before departing, and work is underway to extend the requirement to other long haul flights to New Zealand, COVID-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins confirmed today. “The new PCR test requirement, foreshadowed last ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago