Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Global Warming Rigged? Here's the Email I'd Need to See
It's no use pretending this isn't a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I'm dismayed and deeply shaken by them.
Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.
Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.
But do these revelations justify the sceptics' claims that this is "the final nail in the coffin" of global warming theory? Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence. To bury man-made climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be revealed. Luckily for the sceptics, and to my intense disappointment, I have now been passed the damning email that confirms that the entire science of global warming is indeed a scam. Had I known that it was this easy to rig the evidence, I wouldn't have wasted years of my life promoting a bogus discipline. In the interests of open discourse, I feel obliged to reproduce it here.
From: ernst.kattweizel@redcar.ac.uk
Sent: 29 October 2009
To: The Knights Carbonic
Gentlemen, the culmination of our great plan approaches fast. What the Master called "the ordering of men's affairs by a transcendent world state, ordained by God and answerable to no man", which we now know as Communist World Government, advances towards its climax at Copenhagen. For 185 years since the Master, known to the laity as Joseph Fourier, launched his scheme for world domination, the entire physical science community has been working towards this moment.
The early phases of the plan worked magnificently. First the Master's initial thesis - that the release of infrared radiation is delayed by the atmosphere - had to be accepted by the scientific establishment. I will not bother you with details of the gold paid, the threats made and the blood spilt to achieve this end. But the result was the elimination of the naysayers and the disgrace or incarceration of the Master's rivals. Within 35 years the 3rd Warden of the Grand Temple of the Knights Carbonic (our revered prophet John Tyndall) was able to "demonstrate" the Master's thesis. Our control of physical science was by then so tight that no major objections were sustained.
More resistance was encountered (and swiftly dispatched) when we sought to install the 6th Warden (Svante Arrhenius) first as professor of physics at Stockholm University, then as rector. From this position he was able to project the Master's second grand law - that the infrared radiation trapped in a planet's atmosphere increases in line with the quantity of carbon dioxide the atmosphere contains. He and his followers (led by the Junior Warden Max Planck) were then able to adapt the entire canon of physical and chemical science to sustain the second law.
Then began the most hazardous task of all: our attempt to control the instrumental record. Securing the consent of the scientific establishment was a simple matter. But thermometers had by then become widely available, and amateur meteorologists were making their own readings. We needed to show a steady rise as industrialisation proceeded, but some of these unfortunates had other ideas. The global co-option of police and coroners required unprecedented resources, but so far we have been able to cover our tracks.
The over-enthusiasm of certain of the Knights Carbonic in 1998 was most regrettable. The high reading in that year has proved impossibly costly to sustain. Those of our enemies who have yet to be silenced maintain that the lower temperatures after that date provide evidence of global cooling, even though we have ensured that eight of the 10 warmest years since 1850 have occurred since 2001. From now on we will engineer a smoother progression.
Our co-option of the physical world has been just as successful. The thinning of the Arctic ice cap was a masterstroke. The ring of secret nuclear power stations around the Arctic circle, attached to giant immersion heaters, remains undetected, as do the space-based lasers dissolving the world's glaciers.
Altering the migratory and reproductive patterns of the world's wildlife has proved more challenging. Though we have now asserted control over the world's biologists, there is no accounting for the unauthorised observations of farmers, gardeners, birdwatchers and other troublemakers. We have therefore been forced to drive migrating birds, fish and insects into higher latitudes, and to release several million tonnes of plant pheromones every year to accelerate flowering and fruiting. None of this is cheap, and ever more public money, secretly diverted from national accounts by compliant governments, is required to sustain it.
The co-operation of these governments requires unflagging effort. The capture of George W Bush, a late convert to the cause of Communist World Government, was made possible only by the threatened release of footage filmed by a knight at Yale, showing the future president engaged in coitus with a Ford Mustang. Most ostensibly capitalist governments remain apprised of where their real interests lie, though I note with disappointment that we have so far failed to eliminate Vaclav Klaus. Through the offices of compliant states, the Master's third grand law has been established: world government will be established under the guise of controlling man-made emissions of greenhouse gases.
Keeping the scientific community in line remains a challenge. The national academies are becoming ever more querulous and greedy, and require higher pay-offs each year. The inexplicable events of the past month, in which the windows of all the leading scientific institutions were broken and a horse's head turned up in James Hansen's bed, appear to have staved off the immediate crisis, but for how much longer can we maintain the consensus? Knights Carbonic, now that the hour of our triumph is at hand, I urge you all to redouble your efforts. In the name of the Master, go forth and terrify.
Professor Ernst Kattweizel, University of Redcar. 21st Grand Warden of the Temple of the Knights Carbonic.
This is the kind of conspiracy the deniers need to reveal to show that man-made climate change is a con. The hacked emails are a hard knock, but the science of global warming withstands much more than that.
- Posted in


57 Comments so far
Show AllI really wish George Monbiot had restricted himself to the sober comments at the start of this article, rather than continuing with the spoof email.
The details of climate modeling are extremely esoteric, and very few people feel qualified to comment. It is particularly unfortunate, therefore, to discover that those engaged in such research seem to want to push their point of view by whatever means - fair or foul! I have to ask - if the science is so clear cut, why would they feel the need to do this?
Among the emails released recently, was one from a plant physiologist, who wrote to question the appropriateness of the use of tree-ring data as a measure of temperature. In the subsequent internal email discussion, it was decided not to reply to him because they suspected him of being a climate denier! What sort of professional conduct is that?
If jobs and grants and the opportunity to publish in the relevant journals, is conditional on being 'on the right side', it is hardly surprising that the scientific debate appears settled!
Someone has taken the trouble to search the computer code, which was also released by the hack. Everyone should read some of the comments revealed here:
http://tinyurl.com/yj4tt6k
Here is also a revealing analysis of the statistical error that may be involved in the way the CRU analyse their data:
http://tinyurl.com/yh5bbgr
It is easy to check this - just download the ZIP from WikiLeaks, and look at the files in question.
There are so many REAL green issues - such as weapons proliferation, the rain forests, depletion of resources, over population, etc., yet all we hear about nowadays is CO2 levels!
"In the subsequent internal email discussion, it was decided not to reply to him because they suspected him of being a climate denier! What sort of professional conduct is that?"
The conduct of scientists who are afraid that their work will be misrepresented in order to further the agenda of an Exxon-funded hack, perhaps?
Wham!
David Bailey November 24th, 2009 12:56 pm -- I checked the links and really didn't learn much from them. At any rate, I agree with the gist of your post, and especially with the last paragraph.
The developments discussed and joked about by Monbiot certainly tell us one thing: that scientists, like the rest of us, are human, tend to choose up sides whenever two (or more) sides are possible, and fight over who gets credit for what, and who messed up what. For non-scientists, this implies that skepticism is rational about any scientific claims, and especially claims that would be used to further "political" agendas.
I've been saying for months that much tighter ethical standards and disclosure requirements should be required of anyone who purports to contribute scientific facts, hypotheses, or theories to the "climate change" field. So far no one has taken up this cause, which seems increasingly to be a matter of vital concern to everyone.
"...rather than continuing with the spoof email" But that's the best part.
"Among the emails released recently, was one from a plant physiologist, who wrote to question the appropriateness of the use of tree-ring data as a measure of temperature. In the subsequent internal email discussion, it was decided not to reply to him because they suspected him of being a climate denier! What sort of professional conduct is that?"
I would venture to guess that tree ring data as a measure of temperature is easy to verify. You can do lab experiments, controlling the temperature to see if plants grow faster in hotter climates and higher ratios of CO2. It's almost verifiable by anyone who cooks and cleans with hot water. Heat speeds up everything.
More Company-induced cognitive dissonance.
I find it rather curious that the hacked e-mails appear at exactly the right time to stall the Copenhagen Climate Talks.
Almost as if there was a conspiracy by certain individuals or Corporations who would want the talks derailed...
But we all know that governments and Corporations don't do that kind of thing. Right? It's not like this is any way similar to the forged Niger documents that assisted the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Ask yourself who has the most to gain from the release of these damaging documents at this time? There are your culprits.
Awfully similar to an Acorn sting not so long ago...
Frankly, the apparent surprise over any of this is naive or disingenuous. In the studies d of thing goes on constantly.
Eventually, examines the data and conclusions.
Consistent?
Replicable?
People and institutions will pass -- maybe faster than usual.
Really, we're reading someone else's email. What's next? We going to be looking through his sock-drawer? Hiding a camera in his bedroom?
Their comments about tampering with the peer-review process and blocking publications should be investigated by the proper authorities.
The reason THESE guy's emails were hacked is because the denier community has an infantile preoccupation with the surface temperature record: the record of the atmosphere's average temperature. WHY? The atmosphere constitutes 1/20th of the ocean-atmosphere thermal mass. So, when someone looks at the last ten years of surface temperature data and sees a 'decline', how is that suddenly conflated to 'earth is cooling'? Does anyone ever bother to check with the other 19/20ths of the ocean-atmosphere system to see if 'earth' really IS cooling? Cuz the ocean has never stopped warming in the last 10 years. We would, of course, expect that since when the ocean warms, the atmosphere cools, and vice versa, through the El Nino/La Nina oscillation.
Someone hacked THESE PARTICULAR professors because the denialist community has managed to convince their flock that ONLY the surface temperature record is of importance to GW. But is that true?
Consider one statistic: in the last 10 years, Greenland has lost 1,500 Gigatons of ice to the ocean. But, here's the scary part: 25% (1/4th) of that occurred JUST LAST YEAR. This world is going to hell in a handbasket, and Faux News has us all looking through someones trash for the 'straight dirt' on their inner-demons.
ubrew12 November 24th, 2009 2:05 pm -- Perhaps you could comment on whether your claim that "the ocean has never stopped warming in the last 10 years" refers to the total heat content of the water we refer to as ocean (excluding I suppose lakes and ice on land), or just the ocean surface. To my knowledge, no one has measured the total heat content of the ocean. My understanding is that the PDO, El Nino, La Nina, etc., all occur as warm and cold water change places, which suggests that the total heat content might remain constant. If warm water rises to the surface, that would presumably warm nearby land, which in itself would have nothing to do with global warming.
Also, you say, "We would, of course, expect that since when the ocean warms, the atmosphere cools, and vice versa, through the El Nino/La Nina oscillation." This doesn't seem to be a complete sentence. Anyway, the idea that when the ocean (surface?) warms, the atmosphere cools, and vice versa, is counter-intuitive. Exactly the opposite is what I would expect.
A study by Murphy (2009), mentioned in http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm shows an attempt to sum up the total heat content of ocean, atmosphere, land, and ice. The plot shown there should really be ALL anyone is referring to when they say that 'earth's temperature is changing' due to radiative-forcing effects. The first thing to note is that since 1970 the ocean has never stopped heating for any length of time. The second thing is that during El Nino events, the ocean cools off (its overall temperature drops), and the atmosphere, overall, warms. The opposite occurs during La Nina events. An La Nina represents a large scale overturn of the ocean system, mostly at the Pacific equator, such that cold deep waters are brought to the surface to mix with the atmosphere. Net effect: ocean warms, atmosphere cools. 1998: massive El Nino: maximum atmosphere temps: minimum ocean temps. Etc. This oscillation almost completely explains the oscillations in atmosphere and ocean temperatures over the scale of 1-4 years: they are doing a dance.
On youtube, greenman3610 explains this all quite well. I recommend all his offerings. They can be a little boring, but so is science: he's patiently trying to explain why what is 'obvious' at first glance isn't so at second glance, and having wicked fun poking holes in GW denialist claims, one by one, as he does so.
Thanks for explaining El Nino and La Nina is less than ten words. It suggests that we have a lot of progress to make in communications. It could be that someone could write a book explaining all known scientific knowledge in a small paperback. My point is that perhaps Big Brother's tentacles reach much further into academia than anyone suspects...
As for the temperature fluctuations, we're only interested in the long-term trend which is exponentially upward thanks to supply-driven laissez-faire capitalism/militarism. The other major factor is the glacial cycle which is now at the high temp part of the cycle, called an interglacial. We're going to come off the high temp some time in the next thousand years and have another ice age. In the meantime it can create some bumps, which probably span many decades, not a few years. But the chance that these glacial bumps correlate perfectly with human petro-gluttony over the past two centuries is slim to none. And remember, all renewable, zero-carbon energy conversion methods were quite well-developed a full century ago except photovoltaic. Supply-side laissez-faire capitalism/militarism drove the resource gluttony that is causing global warming.
One-eighth the land area of Arizona, given over to solar thermal power collection, could power the entire U.S. (no other power source required). Solar thermal is parabolic mirrors, molten salt, plumbing, and steam turbines: i.e. technology all known about in the 1800s. And because you can store molten salt, this is BASE power, not 'power when the sun shines'.
It's simply amazing to me that the alternative energy sector is still BEGGING the powers that be for the chance to use 19th century technologies on a level playing field. Attaching a carbon cost to fossil-fuels is merely an admission that there IS a carbon cost. Fossil-fuels is already going to BURY large parts of the world, and make other parts unfit for agriculture. I would say thats a cost, alright.
Bear it now or get buried in it later.
ubrew12 November 24th, 2009 11:00 pm -- Thanks for the Skeptical Science cite (http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm). I hadn't seen an attempt to measure the whole earth's heat content. I believe the argument about whether GW continues depends on the accuracy of the "Total Earth Heat Content anomaly from 1950 (Murphy 2009)" chart. It doesn't as clearly imply that AGW plays the role you attribute to it.
I still don't follow your statements like "Net effect: ocean warms, atmosphere cools. 1998: massive El Nino: maximum atmosphere temps: minimum ocean temps." But no matter; the Skeptical Science material is very good.
I'm sure "deniers" take issue with the accuracy of the chart. I'd like to consider what they say. Meanwhile, Alaska has been having some very cold weather this fall, notwithstanding a strong El Nino . . .
Ask the drowning people of Bangladesh if they think climate change is real.
They and similar people have the semse to migrate uphill a bit. They don't just sit there and "drown".
I'm sure the Indians and Nepalese will have something to say about that. Something like 'get out of my backyard'
How do you know that? Nobody has to leave Bangladesh so suddenly anyway.
The prime low-lying farmland that is relied on to feed the Bangladeshi people can't move uphill.
I agree land can't move uphill, not in the short term geological sense. OTOH, it's undeniable that much productive land is prone to floods, and the overall productivity thereof is dependent on that flooding. This is a matter of man's history all over the world.
I'm no expert in agriculture, but I seem to recall that the fertility of the world's great agricultural flood plains is brought by swollen rivers depositing silt and nutrients from upstream, not by regular inundations of salty seawater.
Bangledesh has *both* situations, and is not unique in having them. People live in these places for proven reasons, and the flooding is admittedly a downside.
I would suggest that Bangladeshis have been able, so far, to continue growing crops in spite of incursions of seawater, not because of them. The rich fertility of flood plains and deltas comes from flooding rivers -- not seawater storm surges! Make no mistake -- saline intrusion from storm surges is a threat to agriculture, and to ground water tables. The more sea water encroaches on our coastal areas, the less viable agriculture in those areas will be. The suggestion that regular flooding of agricultural lands from the sea adds fertility to the soil is nonsense. (There are efforts to develop salt-tolerant crops, which could help the situation somewhat).
"The rich fertility of flood plains and deltas comes from flooding rivers -- "
Yes, and the coast there is downstream from a rather vast system of such rivers.
"saline intrusion from storm surges is a threat to agriculture, "
Do you have any data on the "saline intrusion" trend in Bangledesh?
"The suggestion that regular flooding of agricultural lands from the sea adds fertility to the soil is nonsense. "
I never said it did. I also neglected to mention that tidewater areas such as they have there is some of the most naturally productive territiry for protien with abundant fish and shellfish.
But not OCEAN flooding!
Oh don't go thorwing facts like that at jake. It might cause him to think.
Are you for real? I know that because these are the most crowded countries on earth. If you want an orderly withdrawal from low-lying areas, you are talking about these people settle in America, or other countries with lower population densities. And THAT is why so many of us view AGW as a serious threat to humanity moving forward.
" If you want an orderly withdrawal from low-lying areas,"
Is there currently some big pressure of emigration from low lying Bangladesh? Or do they wish to continue to work the extremely fertile delta lands?
No. The big pressure will come some thursday morning at 2am in 2015. It'll be a pressure on everyone, all at once. And it'll be every man for himself, unless they do something that requires planning and thought. I agree they should try to farm the delta lands as long as possible. But they should realize that nothing in the geologic record suggests that polar ice-fields melt in a well-behaved manner. Those left behind to farm, better have rubber rafts at the ready, and all their affairs in order...
ubrew12 November 24th, 2009 6:30 pm -- Seriously, I hope someone is keeping track of all these comments and brings them up a few years from now. It will be interesting to see who predicted what will have occurred by 2015, and who got it wrong. Come to think of it, maybe we could go back a few years and see who was able to accurately predict TODAY'S climate. I seem to recall that the IPCC made some predictions in 2007 that have missed the mark a little . . .?
Well, my 'famous' prediction is that sea levels will rise by 3 ft in 20 years. But, I'll probably be upstaged by IPCC or NASA, well before that (like by next summer). As I said elsewhere, the latest is that Greenland lost 1,500 GIGATONNES of ice in the last ten years. One-Quarter of that loss occurred just in the last year. Meanwhile, science news yesterday confirms that East Antartica is, in fact, losing ice every year. Adding in W Antartica, that means Antartica, as a whole, is losing 220 GIGATONNES of land ice every year, an amount that increases by 30 gigatonnes every year.
Meanwhile, the GW deniers will tell you that Antarctic SEA ice is increasing in extent (like that has ANY role to play in sea level rise... lol).
The whole subject of polar ice-shelf melting is very uncertain, but we can't deny the almost DAILY avalanche of bad news by researchers who finally got the satellite coverage needed to do their research.
If the bad Polar news coming out these days is any indication, I don't have much hope for what we'll see when the Polar METHANE folks finally get the serious funding they obviously need.
'What you don't know, can't hurt you' Yeah, right...
ubrew, read With Speed and Violence, by???, or The Great Iceage, by Drury, Chapman, etal.??
What do you think about the possibility that [change in location of water mass (poles to ocean equatorial bulge) and the resulting changes in angular momentum/torque affecting the tension on tectonic plates] is the trigger that provides the last couple of degrees of warming> tipping point?
The IPCC/Gore chart of CO2/temp of the ice cores shows clockwork-type reversals, perhaps requiring mechanical, sudden triggers to set them off, such as tectonic activity might provide...?
One person who's on track to (again) be right is James Lovelock, who predicted that folk would be able to sail to the north pole by 2020-2025.
Whether he's right in his longer-term prediction (that 4/5 of humanity will have succumbed to famine, plague, and war by 2100, the remainder struggling to survive in the Arctic Circle, with the rest of the planet mostly desert with warm, clear, dead oceans) is something I very much hope we'll get weaving and make him wrong about (something he hopes too, though with deep pessimism).
"The big pressure will come some thursday morning at 2am in 2015. It'll be a pressure on everyone, all at once. And it'll be every man for himself,"
You are describing what could only be an asteroid strike, having nothing at all to do with climate change.
I'm describing an avalanche, or something like it. There are large parts of Antartica, for example, where land ice is anchored to the continent at the continental border. Unfortunately, that anchorage is itself under sea-level. This means there are already extraordinary bouyancy forces building up at that interface. If the interface gives way, the whole glacial section suddenly unanchors from the continent and floats, water rushes in and lubricates the flow of land ice backed up behind the ice dam, and it all slides into the ocean. Something like that could raise sea levels by one foot in one night, although it may not be likely. The geologic record shows sea levels growing by hundreds of feet in just a hundred years or so. Its hard to believe that growth was well-behaved.
" The geologic record shows sea levels growing by hundreds of feet in just a hundred years or so. Its hard to believe that growth was well-behaved."
Agreed, and "climate change" as we use the term is not required for such events in particular.
The point of Monbiot's satire is that there really are people who believe climate science is a big secret socialist plot. But this would mean that the plot would have to go all the back to Joseph Fourier in the early 19th century. So, the piece seemed reasonable, if a bit overdone, to me.
I suspect this piece goes over the heads of most US readers (including many CD readers), who have appalling poor science/history educations - most never having heard of even Max Plank. I suspect most high-school educated British would know who Plank was and even Plank's Law.
This distressingly popular view that political agendas can be "deconstructed" from the "text" of physical science (along with art, religion, theater, music...) is, of course, just "postmodernism" (pomo) which has seeped into popular thought everywhere.
How ironic it is that pomo-thought has it's origins in left-wing academics in literature, but is reaching it's full flowering among the bookless-right.
I like your attitude and style, but must point out that it's Planck, not Plank. And you're doing what good book readers should know better than do: you're misusing the apostrophe with "it's". It should be: "How ironic it is that pomo-thought has *its* origins in left-wing academics in literature, but is reaching *its* full flowering among the bookless-right."
"It's" is the contraction for "it is." It's not the possessive form for "it." I know, virtually everyone gets this completely backwards. I'm not picking on you.
Damn. I know I'm going to forget that by the next time I post!
I have to watch grammar all day at work. This is my escape from it. I should have noticed the misspelling, and I thought I had extinguished the "it's" problem. Frankly, I don't even notice grammar when reading unless it is so bad it affects readability.
I'm just glad no one has ever hacked my e-mails. The number of times I jokingly referred to the black-holes that we would make when the LHC turns back on would be serious fodder for the kind of character assination that these wing-nuts seem to specialize in.
They are uninterested in serious debate, only propoganda and point scoring.
Good luck counting the number of black holes that can fit on the head of a pin.
42
Life, the Universe, and Everything!
we apologise for any inconvenience........................
Physicscitizen,
I think your remarks went over the heads of the USAn audience here.
The LHC-will-cause-the-end-of-the-world-and-maybe-the-whole-universe alarmists, and I remain a bit of one myself, got no media attention over here. And less than one USAn in a thousand even knows what the LHC is.
I find comfort from my fears of this happening in Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five. The Tralfamadorians, who exist in a state of being "unstuck in time" know that the universe will be annihilated when a future Tralfamadorian high energy physics experiment goes awry. But they intend to do nothing to prevent it, because their "prime directive" is summarized: "So it goes."
Rest in peace Dear Kurt! So it goes...
I see the LHC is back up and running...
I was and remain a HUGE fan of Kurt Vonnegut ever since my English teacher in high school gave me "Cat's Craddle" and told me... "This is weird and hard to understand. You might like it."
At 17 I did not find it hard to understand, but his quirky style and multiple interconnected plot lines...as well as his sense of high irony hooked me straight away.
I don't know if you would find it frightening or encouraging though that physicists read Vonnegut.......
As for mini-black holes. I hope to join the search for them soon! They can only exist if gravity is actually strong and if the extra spacial dimensions are 'large' so it would be phenominally cool if they DID exist! Certainly worth a look, however unlikely the chance that they actually exist.
The Deniers seem like Lawyers to me. They figure if they can impeach the evidence, their client can walk.
Too many people skipped the hard courses in school.