NOAA SMEAR CAMPAIGN DEBUNKED:
THE ISSUE:
"David Rose makes the extraordinary claim that “world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data”, accusing the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of manipulating the data to show more warming in a 2015 study by Tom Karl and coauthors."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html
The NOAA study in question:
https://www.nas.org/images/documents/Climate_Change.pdf
This smear attack, which was built on hot air, fell apart like a house of cards. Lets debunk it in three simple steps:
1. In the fall of 2017, and try not to laugh now, the Daily Mail, the newspaper which first printed the story, published a rebuttal of their own story. It WAS a hoax:
"World leaders had NOT been "duped", as the headline said, and there was no "irrefutable evidence" that the paper was based on misleading, unverified data, as the article had claimed."
"We are disappointed with this finding, but we accept it and are publishing the adjudication with prominence in the newspaper and online."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4891046/IPSO-adjudication-upheld-against-MoS-climatesciencearticle.html
Here is the fake graph Daily Mail printed, debunked and explained:
Mail on Sunday gets two measurement series to appear as different by using different starting points. Taking the same starting point for the temperature deviation, the two measuring series become identical. This is directly fraudulent by Mail on Sunday.
https://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/2017/02/06/graph-daily-mail-not-want-see/
2.The NOAA study has since been independently confirmed. Scientists went through both the NOAA work and other new estimates for the warming. They find that all estimates conclude equally and use correct methods. Ironicly there is a small bias towards cooling.
Assessing recent warming using instrumentally homogeneous sea surface temperature records.
Abstract
Sea surface temperature (SST) records are subject to potential biases due to changing instrumentation and measurement practices. Significant differences exist between commonly used composite SST reconstructions from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Extended Reconstruction Sea Surface Temperature (ERSST), the Hadley Centre SST data set (HadSST3), and the Japanese Meteorological Agency’s Centennial Observation-Based Estimates of SSTs (COBE-SST) from 2003 to the present. The update from ERSST version 3b to version 4 resulted in an increase in the operational SST trend estimate during the last 19 years from 0.07° to 0.12°C per decade, indicating a higher rate of warming in recent years. We show that ERSST version 4 trends generally agree with largely independent, near-global, and instrumentally homogeneous SST measurements from floating buoys, Argo floats, and radiometer-based satellite measurements that have been developed and deployed during the past two decades. We find a large cooling bias in ERSST version 3b and smaller but significant cooling biases in HadSST3 and COBE-SST from 2003 to the present, with respect to most series examined. These results suggest that reported rates of SST warming in recent years have been underestimated in these three data sets.
Fig. 2 Twelve-month centered moving average of temperature difference series between composite and buoy-only, CCI, and ARC SST anomalies.Values below 0 indicate that the composite series has a cool bias relative to the IHSST record.
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e1601207
3. IT WASNT EVEN ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE DATA, ONLY ABOUT ARCHIVING.
These 6 sentences sums up what is was all about:
"Bates himself later told E&E News that "The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was." In other words: The issue was never the truth of the global warming pause, which most other scientists agree likely didn't happen. Rather, it was a straightforward debate about data archiving and management.
http://nordic.businessinsider.com/noaa-climate-data-not-faked-2017-2
BONUS - MORE DEBUNKS
http://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/no-data-manipulation-at-noaa/
https://www.snopes.com/2017/02/08/noaa-scientists-climate-change-data/
https://www.snopes.com/climatology-fraud-global-warming/
BONUS - LETS DEBUNK:
THE NEW NOAA SMEAR CAMPAIGN RUNNING IN DENIER BLOGS
Temperature measurements made with different instruments and methods over time must necessarily be adjusted to ensure high-quality records of temperature that reliably represent changes. The adjustments needed for land stations in the United States often increase the apparent long-term warming, but overall, adjustments actually reduce the global warming trend.
https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/breitbart-repeats-bloggers-unsupported-claim-noaa-manipulates-data-exaggerate-warming/
BONUS:
For a long time the UAH satellite data showed less warming than all the other data, but this was due to a bug in the system. When this calibration error was fixed, the data showed the same warming as the other data.
Satellite measurements of the troposphere confirm warming trend, data shows | Carbon Brief
Major correction to satellite data shows 140% faster warming since 1998
What trend do the UAH data show now? Lets go to the UAH home page:
The University of Alabama in Huntsville
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2018/july2018/GTR_2018July.pdf
Their trend is 0.13 C per decade. Very much in tune with all the other data.
In the same period, NOAA data shows a trend of 0.10 per decade! IN THE PERIOD WHERE CLIMATE DENIERS CLAIM NOAA FUDGED THEIR DATA. LOL.
Climate at a Glance
CLIMATEGATE DEBUNKED
The issue:
In late November 2009, more than 1,000 e-mails between scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.’s University of East Anglia were stolen and made public by an as-yet-unnamed hacker. Climate skeptics are claiming that they show scientific misconduct that amounts to the complete fabrication of man-made global warming.
The hacker attack was a manufactured "controversy" by fossil fuel interests and global warming denialists - timed specifically to disrupt the 2009 and 2011 climate talks and the Cap and Trade bill.
2009: In Copenhagen, an important climate meeting is about to happen and in the United States the so-called "cap and trade" bill would reduce CO2 emissions. The fossil fuel industry goes into panic mode. "Something" had to be done.
Let's see, what is the cheapest trick in the book? Ahh, smear campaigns !! Emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in England are stolen by an hacker. (So convinient for fossil fuel interests!). The contents of these emails were twisted and cherry picked out of context thus "proved" climate science and scientists was corrupt.
The right-wing conservative media in the United States, including the mad cappers, of course, went completely bananas. The all reported the case exactly in the same manner. The news anchors words were the same, they were like programmed robots, thats how carefully planned the hacker attack was.
Late 2009: Right-wing media goes wall to wall with coverage of the emails, claiming climate change is a global conspiracy. Rush Limbaugh says, “It looks like substantial fraud,” and he calls for the scientists involved to be “named and fired, drawn and quartered, or whatever it is.” After a conservative media watchdog organization demands that the major broadcast networks cover the “growing scandal,” the networks comply. “Have the books been cooked on climate change?” asks NBC’s Brian Williams at the start of one broadcast. “Did scientists skew their research to support theories about global warming?” asks ABC’s Charles Gibson. Conservatives demand an investigation of Mann.
OUR FRIEND POTHOLER54:
And, do not laugh now, just before another global climate conference, the UN Climate Conference in Durban, South Africa November 28, 2011, a new series of 5,000 hacked emails was posted on a Russian server. Once again, the e-mails are communicated via links in climate-skeptical blogs. The hacker writes, "Today's decisions should be based on all information we can get, not on "hiding the ddecline."
The hacker attack was "successful", and the timing was perfect. Here we see how republican politicians, funded by oil money, turn on around in a flash after the "scandal" is a fact. The Cap and Trade bill was dead in the water.
And gain, dont laugh, this smear campaign we "accidentally" first heard of on WATTSUPWITHTHAT, a blog sponsored by, dont laugh, the Heartland Institute, notorious for its anti-science activities that include lobbying for tobacco and oil industry. Hilarious.
The whole thing looked remarkably like the US election 2016.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/12/climategate-timeline-wikileaks-hacking-russia-trump/
11/21/09: WikiLeaks publishes the hacked emails.
11/24/09: Sen. James Inhofe (Okla.), the top Republican on the Senate’s environmental committee, launches a “Climategate investigation,” claiming that the basis for government efforts to address global warming “was contrived and fabricated.”
11/28/09: Penn State says it “is reviewing the concerns that have been raised” about Mann’s research.
12/1/09: Phil Jones steps aside as CRU’s director, citing the need to let an independent review run its course.
12/3/09: A key Saudi Arabian diplomat predicts Climategate will have a “huge impact” on upcoming global warming negotiations in Copenhagen, Denmark. “It appears from the details of the scandal that there is no relationship whatsoever between human activities and climate change,” he tells the BBC. “Climate is changing for thousands of years, but for natural and not human-induced reasons. So, whatever the international community does to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will have no effect on the climate’s natural variability.”
12/6/09: Donald Trump signs his name to a full-page advertisement in the New York Times a day before the Copenhagen summit. The letter calls for strong international and domestic action to fight global warming and notes that it “is scientifically irrefutable that there will be catastrophic and irreversible consequences” if leaders fail to act.
12/6/09: The vice chairman of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) speculates that Russian intelligence may have orchestrated the Climategate hack, because of the Russian FTP server the hacker used to post the stolen emails; however, that server would have been available to anyone in the world.
12/7/09: Climate negotiators begin meeting in Copenhagen as Climategate continues to dominate US global warming coverage.
12/8/09: CRU scientists report they’re receiving death threats and facing harassment.
12/9/09: Sarah Palin falsely claims in a Washington Post op-ed that the Climategate emails “reveal that leading climate ‘experts’…manipulated data to ‘hide the decline’ in global temperatures.” She calls on President Barack Obama to boycott Copenhagen.
12/10/09: Twenty-six Republican senators send a letter to the United Nations’ secretary general requesting an independent investigation into the findings of the IPCC.
12/18/09: The Copenhagen talks end after failing to produce a meaningful agreement. The apparent Climategate hacker would later claim that his goal in releasing the emails was to disrupt the conference. (Negotiators blame policy disagreements rather than the emails.)
December 2015: Six years after the failure in Copenhagen, nearly 200 countries agree to adopt the landmark Paris climate accord and commit to reduce global emissions. Trump calls US participation in the negotiations “ridiculous.”
7/22/16: Three days before the Democratic National Convention, WikiLeaks publishes nearly 20,000 hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee. Twitter bots are partially responsible for spreading the information. A persona named Guccifer 2.0, later connected to Russian intelligence, takes credit for the hack.
8/27/16: Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) asks the FBI to investigate the Trump campaign’s connections to Russia. “The prospect of individuals tied to Trump, WikiLeaks and the Russian government coordinating to influence our election raises concerns of the utmost gravity,” writes Reid.
10/7/16: The same day that US intelligence agencies say they are “confident” Russian entities were involved in the DNC hack, WikiLeaks begins releasing thousands of emails stolen from John Podesta’s private email account. The Podesta emails are released less than an hour after the Washington Post revealed a 2005 video in which Trump boasted about sexually assaulting women.
10/10/16: “I love WikiLeaks,” Trump says at a Pennsylvania campaign rally. Trump repeatedly promotes WikiLeaks during the final month of the campaign—at least 164 times, according to a ThinkProgress analysis of Trump’s speeches, media appearances, debates, and tweets.
11/8/16: Trump is elected president.
11/24/09: Sen. James Inhofe (Okla.), the top Republican on the Senate’s environmental committee, launches a “Climategate investigation,” claiming that the basis for government efforts to address global warming “was contrived and fabricated.”
11/28/09: Penn State says it “is reviewing the concerns that have been raised” about Mann’s research.
12/1/09: Phil Jones steps aside as CRU’s director, citing the need to let an independent review run its course.
12/3/09: A key Saudi Arabian diplomat predicts Climategate will have a “huge impact” on upcoming global warming negotiations in Copenhagen, Denmark. “It appears from the details of the scandal that there is no relationship whatsoever between human activities and climate change,” he tells the BBC. “Climate is changing for thousands of years, but for natural and not human-induced reasons. So, whatever the international community does to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will have no effect on the climate’s natural variability.”
12/6/09: Donald Trump signs his name to a full-page advertisement in the New York Times a day before the Copenhagen summit. The letter calls for strong international and domestic action to fight global warming and notes that it “is scientifically irrefutable that there will be catastrophic and irreversible consequences” if leaders fail to act.
12/6/09: The vice chairman of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) speculates that Russian intelligence may have orchestrated the Climategate hack, because of the Russian FTP server the hacker used to post the stolen emails; however, that server would have been available to anyone in the world.
12/7/09: Climate negotiators begin meeting in Copenhagen as Climategate continues to dominate US global warming coverage.
12/8/09: CRU scientists report they’re receiving death threats and facing harassment.
12/9/09: Sarah Palin falsely claims in a Washington Post op-ed that the Climategate emails “reveal that leading climate ‘experts’…manipulated data to ‘hide the decline’ in global temperatures.” She calls on President Barack Obama to boycott Copenhagen.
12/10/09: Twenty-six Republican senators send a letter to the United Nations’ secretary general requesting an independent investigation into the findings of the IPCC.
12/18/09: The Copenhagen talks end after failing to produce a meaningful agreement. The apparent Climategate hacker would later claim that his goal in releasing the emails was to disrupt the conference. (Negotiators blame policy disagreements rather than the emails.)
December 2015: Six years after the failure in Copenhagen, nearly 200 countries agree to adopt the landmark Paris climate accord and commit to reduce global emissions. Trump calls US participation in the negotiations “ridiculous.”
7/22/16: Three days before the Democratic National Convention, WikiLeaks publishes nearly 20,000 hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee. Twitter bots are partially responsible for spreading the information. A persona named Guccifer 2.0, later connected to Russian intelligence, takes credit for the hack.
8/27/16: Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) asks the FBI to investigate the Trump campaign’s connections to Russia. “The prospect of individuals tied to Trump, WikiLeaks and the Russian government coordinating to influence our election raises concerns of the utmost gravity,” writes Reid.
10/7/16: The same day that US intelligence agencies say they are “confident” Russian entities were involved in the DNC hack, WikiLeaks begins releasing thousands of emails stolen from John Podesta’s private email account. The Podesta emails are released less than an hour after the Washington Post revealed a 2005 video in which Trump boasted about sexually assaulting women.
10/10/16: “I love WikiLeaks,” Trump says at a Pennsylvania campaign rally. Trump repeatedly promotes WikiLeaks during the final month of the campaign—at least 164 times, according to a ThinkProgress analysis of Trump’s speeches, media appearances, debates, and tweets.
11/8/16: Trump is elected president.
7/18/12: Police
in Norfolk, England, close the investigation into the CRU server
breach, with no real leads. While the police have no suspects, lead detective Julian Gregory tells the Guardian that
the “targeted” attack “appears to have been done with the intention of
influencing the global debate on climate change.” Gregory concludes that the email dumps were timed specifically to disrupt the 2009 and 2011 climate talks.
LONDON, UK, March 31, 2010 (ENS) - An investigation into leaked emails by British climate scientists that appeared to indicate a conspiracy to manipulate data to bolster a case for global warming has cleared the scientists of wrongdoing. The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee today published its report on the disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit, CRU, at the University of East Anglia.
The investigation found no basis for accusations of dishonesty and no attempt to mislead on the part of the scientists.
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2010/2010-03-31-02.html
Discover Magazine: Basically, some emails from climate scientists were leaked by a still-unknown hacker, and to some people it indicated knowingly fraudulent activity by the scientists. However, those of us familiar with the way science and scientists actually work knew from the start there was nothing nefarious going on. When the emails were made public, a lot of noise came from the usual places. The deniers went into overdrive. But it turns out they were just spinning their wheels.
"It was a manufactured controversy by global warming denialists trying to make enough noise to drown out any real talk on this topic."
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/05/05/breaking-climate-scientists-cleared-of-malpractice-by-panel/#.WOt9l_mLSHs
"Claims that "hide the decline" meant "hide the fact that global temperatures have been declining" are also unraveled by the timeline. Phil's email was 1999, and 1998 had been the hottest year on record, peaking a global rise throughout the 1990s that nobody disputed, as it was all instrumental data. There had been no decline of global temperatures to hide."
https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4601
No charges, no trials, no sentences no nothing. Isnt it about time you amateur deniers and pro think tank deniers to stop chasing ghosts and to act as jugde and jury and executioniers over this manufactured smear campaign?
If there is anyone guilty here, its all the deniers who keeps on accusing, attacking and smearing these scientists, scientists who has never been proven guilty of anything by any court of law.
All allegations against Michael M. Mann, were found groundless.
Just check the inquiry report.
RA-10 Inquiry Report: Concerning the Allegations of Research Misconduct Against Dr. Michael E. Mann, Department of Meteorology, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University February 3, 2010 RA-10 Inquiry Committee for the Case of Dr. Michael E. Mann:
The report concludes that there is no basis for claims that Mann has held back or forged data that he has deleted or destroyed e-mails or other material or has misused information he has received in a privileged manner.
Finding 1. After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data. While a perception has been created in the weeks after the CRU emails were made public that Dr. Mann has engaged in the suppression or falsification of data, there is no credible evidence that he ever did so, and certainly not while at Penn State. In fact to the contrary, in instances that have been focused upon by some as indicating falsification of data, for example in the use of a “trick” to manipulate the data, this is explained as a discussion among Dr. Jones and others including Dr. Mann about how best to put together a graph for a World Meteorological Organization (WMO) report. They were not falsifying data; they were trying to construct an understandable graph for those who were not experts in the field. The so-called “trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field.
Decision 1. As there is no substance to this allegation, there is no basis for further examination of this allegation in the context of an investigation in the second phase of
RA-10.
https://web.archive.org/web/20100215071321/http://www.research.psu.edu/orp/Findings_Mann_Inquiry.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2010/07/michael-mann-exonerated-penn-state-inquiry-finds-no-substance-allegations
And yes, his "hockeystick" data is available, like here:
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/tools/tools.php
BONUS: 5 REASONS WHY THE HOCKEYSTICK IS HERE TO STAY
Yes, all the data
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/climate-monitoring/land-and-atmosphere/surface-station-records
have been replicated:
"The Independent Climate Change Email Review went back to primary data sources and were able to replicate CRU's results. This means not only was CRU not hiding anything, but it had nothing to hide. Though CRU neglected to provide an exact list of temperature stations, it could not have hid or tampered with data."
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20739-ok-climate-sceptics-heres-the-raw-data-you-wanted/
https://skepticalscience.com/CRU-tampered-temperature-data.htm
But this is the funniest part. Deniers favorite scientist, Roy Spencer, and his UAH data, which deniers love to refer to, what trend do they show for the same period of the Climategate smear attack?
Lets go to the UAH home page:
Their trend is 0.13 C per decade. Very much in tune with all the other data.
So much for a Climategate "scandal".
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-surface-and-satellite-temperature-records-compare
Lets have a closer look at those emails taken out of context.
Thats what denial blogs do. They pull one sentence, or one phrase, or one data point OUT OF CONTEXT. They hope their audience accepts it without looking any further. They want their blogs to be the blinders on the eyes of their readers. "Look here; don't look there."
A prime example is a 1999 e-mail from Jones, who wrote:
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
Skeptics claim the words “trick” and “decline” show Jones is using sneaky manipulations to mask a decline in global temperatures. But that’s not the case. Actual temperatures, as measured by scientific instruments such as thermometers, were rising at the time of the writing of this decade-old e-mail, and (as we’ve noted) have continued to rise since then. Jones was referring to the decline in temperatures implied by measurements of the width and density of tree rings. In recent decades, these measures indicate a dip, while more accurate instrument-measured temperatures continue to rise.
"Scientists at CRU use tree-ring data and other “proxy” measurements to estimate temperatures from times before instrumental temperature data began to be collected. However, since about 1960, tree-ring data have diverged from actual measured temperatures. Far from covering it up, CRU scientists and others have published reports of this divergence many times. The “trick” that Jones was writing about in his 1999 e-mail was simply adding the actual, measured instrumental data into a graph of historic temperatures. Jones says it’s a “trick” in the colloquial sense of an adroit feat — “a clever thing to do,” as he put it — not a deception. What’s hidden is the fact that tree-ring data in recent decades doesn’t track with thermometer measurements."
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
Here is another from Michael E. Mann:
FactCheck.org debunk:
Letter to Congress from U.S. scientists: "The body of evidence that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming is overwhelming. The content of the stolen emails has no impact whatsoever on our overall understanding that human activity is driving dangerous levels of global warming. … Even without including analyses from the UK research center from which the emails were stolen, the body of evidence underlying our understanding of human-caused global warming remains robust."
The truth is that over the 13 years covered by the CRU e-mails, scientific consensus has only become stronger as the evidence for global warming from various sources has mounted. Reports from the National Academies and the U.S. Global Change Research Program that analyze large amounts of data from various sources also agree, as does the IPCC, that climate change is not in doubt. In advance of the 2009 U.N. climate change summit, the national academies of 13 nations issued a joint statement of their recommendations for combating climate change, in which they discussed the “human forcing” of global warming and said that the need for action was “indisputable.”
Lets have a closer look at those emails taken out of context.
Thats what denial blogs do. They pull one sentence, or one phrase, or one data point OUT OF CONTEXT. They hope their audience accepts it without looking any further. They want their blogs to be the blinders on the eyes of their readers. "Look here; don't look there."
A prime example is a 1999 e-mail from Jones, who wrote:
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
Skeptics claim the words “trick” and “decline” show Jones is using sneaky manipulations to mask a decline in global temperatures. But that’s not the case. Actual temperatures, as measured by scientific instruments such as thermometers, were rising at the time of the writing of this decade-old e-mail, and (as we’ve noted) have continued to rise since then. Jones was referring to the decline in temperatures implied by measurements of the width and density of tree rings. In recent decades, these measures indicate a dip, while more accurate instrument-measured temperatures continue to rise.
"Scientists at CRU use tree-ring data and other “proxy” measurements to estimate temperatures from times before instrumental temperature data began to be collected. However, since about 1960, tree-ring data have diverged from actual measured temperatures. Far from covering it up, CRU scientists and others have published reports of this divergence many times. The “trick” that Jones was writing about in his 1999 e-mail was simply adding the actual, measured instrumental data into a graph of historic temperatures. Jones says it’s a “trick” in the colloquial sense of an adroit feat — “a clever thing to do,” as he put it — not a deception. What’s hidden is the fact that tree-ring data in recent decades doesn’t track with thermometer measurements."
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
Here is another from Michael E. Mann:
"No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstruction"
In the right context, the meaning is nothing like what denier bloggs wants you to believe. That highlighted part clearly shows he didn't mean the first sentence the way science-denial blogs pretended.
In the right context, the meaning is nothing like what denier bloggs wants you to believe. That highlighted part clearly shows he didn't mean the first sentence the way science-denial blogs pretended.
Another common quote is from Kevin Trenberth:
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
Again,
out of context, that sounds pretty damning, but in context, he was not
talking about the warming of the entire planet, but rather the flow of
energy through the earth, and the fact that there are parts of that
system that we do not yet understand. Here is the paper that Trenberth
was discussing (Trenberth 2009)
So to summarise, Trenberth's email says this:
Skeptics use Trenberth's email to characterise climate scientists as secretive and deceptive. However, when one takes the trouble to acquaint oneself with the science, the opposite becomes apparent. Trenberth outlines his views in a clear, open manner, frankly articulating his frustrations at the limitations of observation systems. Trenberth's opinions didn't need to be illegally stolen and leaked onto the internet. They were already publicly available in the peer reviewed literature - and much less open to misinterpretation than a quote-mined email.and you can find more details at Skeptical Science.
Despite being heralded as “the final nail in the coffin of anthropogenic global warming, Climategate did not even demonstrate small-scale corruption of the peer review process, let alone on the scale of the climate science community. In any case, the CRU scientists reviewed only a small part of the large body of evidence for anthropogenic global warming. That mountain of evidence cannot be explained away by the behaviour of a few individuals.So to summarise, Trenberth's email says this:
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."
After reviewing the discussion in Trenberth 2009, it's apparent that what he meant was this:
"Global warming is still happening - our planet is still accumulating heat. But our observation systems aren't able to comprehensively keep track of where all the energy is going. Consequently, we can't definitively explain why surface temperatures have gone down in the last few years. That's a travesty!"
Skeptics use Trenberth's email to characterise climate scientists as secretive and deceptive. However, when one takes the trouble to acquaint oneself with the science, the opposite becomes apparent. Trenberth outlines his views in a clear, open manner, frankly articulating his frustrations at the limitations of observation systems. Trenberth's opinions didn't need to be illegally stolen and leaked onto the internet. They were already publicly available in the peer reviewed literature - and much less open to misinterpretation than a quote-mined email.and you can find more details at Skeptical Science.
FactCheck.org debunk:
Letter to Congress from U.S. scientists: "The body of evidence that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming is overwhelming. The content of the stolen emails has no impact whatsoever on our overall understanding that human activity is driving dangerous levels of global warming. … Even without including analyses from the UK research center from which the emails were stolen, the body of evidence underlying our understanding of human-caused global warming remains robust."
The truth is that over the 13 years covered by the CRU e-mails, scientific consensus has only become stronger as the evidence for global warming from various sources has mounted. Reports from the National Academies and the U.S. Global Change Research Program that analyze large amounts of data from various sources also agree, as does the IPCC, that climate change is not in doubt. In advance of the 2009 U.N. climate change summit, the national academies of 13 nations issued a joint statement of their recommendations for combating climate change, in which they discussed the “human forcing” of global warming and said that the need for action was “indisputable.”
Ingen kommentarer:
Legg inn en kommentar