The Climate Change Data Manipulation
66From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). Oct 12, 2009
“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… Our observing system is inadequate”
From: Phil Jones. To: Many. March 11, 2003
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor"
From Phil Jones. To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). Date: May 29, 2008
“Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise.”
The three quotes above compounded by a phrase from the mail of a Prof. Phil Jones, Director of the UAE climate research Unit, coupled with others, are responsible for the new heated debate on the veracity of the impact of man's activities on climate change.
It is worthwhile to gaze intensely into the matter at hand. What Exactly could be deduced from the said evidence of a possible manipulation? Why would scientists just want to create a political situation by drawing conclusions on false premises? Or, an initial misrepresentation has given rise to a monster that must be concealed.
Consider the quote: "We can't account for the lack of warming at the moment" This statement does not say: "we can't account for warming at the moment". Then, where is the dispute coming from? How could this be an evidence of manipulation of climate change Data? But it is there making the news as part of the intercepted mails that attempts to conceal a lack of evidence. Perhaps, it means 'we should not account for lack of warming at the moment'.
And the second quote says: "I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor" The conclusion drawn from here is that they were trying to hide something. But what kind of pressure has the so called editor put on the man? Could the Editor be a skeptic whose inquisition was to tilt to a doubt? What about an attempt to avoid a misrepresentation?
Then terminate with this: "can you delete any email you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise" Delete what type of email? Climate change Data manipulation email?
The most contagious, "a trick to hide the decline" from Prof. Phil Jones. Although this might hold water but it is unassociated with climate change. One could only assume it to be linked with fall in temperature.
If they are attempting to manipulate recent Data, how would they be successful considering the existence of independent researchers whose works have shown a reduction in recent temperatures?
One would want to adopt conclusions drawn from false premises. But considering the various forces that have a stake in a diversion from fossil fuel to green energy sources, or the extra task of complying with imminent regulations in carbon(iv) oxide emission, easy debunk without any direct link to the subject cannot be an attractive sell. Crude oil and other fossils fuels such as coal are a very strong force that could do anything to slide down climate change therapy. That it came at a point when there is hope on possible cooperation between nations, points to an attempt to derail.
Acid Rain, Political Unrest, Civil War, Terrorism, Nuclear Armament, Air Pollution, Aquatic Pollution, and more; are the deductions from the status quo energy source. Even if Carbon emission has no impact on Global Warming at the moment, What about the others. Carbon cutting could just be the push to take man thinking in the other direction. And what if there used to be warming and some recent changes have initiated a reverse? And what about the navigation in areas initially inaccessible? The climate is cooling and the ice melting?
America today is at the Copenhagen with 'empty hand' because of the strong divide between pro- and anti-climate change opinion. It is so tense that it has become a political mover. Hence, arrival at a concrete climate decision was impossible. But we must reason also with a people who might lose what they consider a lifestyle. It is not so easy to throw what they know away with a promise of an untested Glory.
On the skepticism, they said they intercepted thousands of mail exchanges but they could only come up with less than four emphases that are unconnected with climate change. But they were enough to charge the media. What ever is the case, Climate change awareness is good news that could make man to pay more attentions to his activities on the surface of the Earth, and as well a pointer to a future when choice will have to be made, as well as a stimulus to combat certain evils that are associated with the present energy source.
CommentsLoading...
What is more important is that, if there is a better way to live on this planet, why don't we give it a try?
The main cause of earths pollution is due to mankind. so i am not going to comment against our human kind. anyway nice hub.
Amanda Severn, Your point is very Logical. The reason for a change could have been socio-economical or other reasons that could be beyond scientific experimentations. That it is tagged a 'scandal' is very essential. Perhaps something else is cooking. I thank you for taking the time to make this important comment.
William R. Wilson, thank you for pointing out the hasty generalization. Issues of this nature, if well spinned, could attract a strong resistance from a people who may not have the patience to get to details of what you have illustrated. It is nice you pointed out some important factors which should have been considered also.
I'm guessing that the recent global recession may have actually reduced carbon emissions. It seems logical to assume that higher unemployment equates to less spending on non-essentials which in turn equates to less activity in manufacturing. Additionally, lower employment is probably reducing the number of road miles travelled, and therefore fuel consumption will have taken a dip. These are unplanned 'improvements' in the global carbon footprint. I've no idea whether they would have any impact. I'll leave that for the scientists amongst us to debate! As to Climategate, I do wonder what has been achieved here. Clearly this 'scandal' was escalated to fulfil an agenda. Are people afraid that ecologists and conservationists are somehow damaging the economy, or is there something even more compelling quietly brewing?
Nice hub James. One point though - the lower tropossphere temperatures are only one data point. There are different layers of the atmosphere, which are all affected differently by greenhouse gases. Then there are surface temperatures, and sea temperatures, and other indicators that are not direct temperature measurements - like global snow cover (shrinking), sea ice at the poles (shrinking), animal movements (northward and upward to cooler climes), plant bloom dates (which indicate spring coming earlier every year), etc.
Too bad that the emails and the media coverage only focus on a few selected quotes taken out of context and with no mention of all the evidence for manmade global warming.
Faybe Bay Level 1 Commenter 2 years ago
Excellent points all around. I have been against the Global Warming controversy. My son actually had an argument in school when he said it was getting colder not warmer and was countered 'No it's not' and 'How do you know?' by his teachers. We are here now, and we should do all we can now to preserve the earth for the future generations. It should not be based on controversy but common sense. Not climactic data, or a hole in the ozone layer, just good old fashioned common sense. Go Green people, and do not do it out of fear, its the right thing to do.