Global Warming E-Mails Scandal Doesn't Disprove Climate Change Facts

December 7, 2009 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (23)

By Bonnie Erbe, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

I must take issue with last week's posting by my conservative colleague Peter Roff on the E-mail scandal that's rocking the scientific community.

In that scandal, according to the New York Times, one of whose reporters broke the story and was the first to release the E-mails:

John Tierney, a Times science columnist, explained in Science Times last week the most controversial revelation so far in the e-mail—Jones's effort to "hide the decline" (in temperatures) when preparing a graph for the cover of a report to be read by policy makers. The graph, showing sharply higher temperatures in the last several decades, relied in part on tree ring data, until the rings began to diverge from thermometer readings and show a decline in temperatures. Jones and his colleagues did not believe that data and removed it from the graph, substituting direct thermometer readings without explicitly acknowledging the switch.

While the disclosure of the E-mails admittedly has done a great deal of damage to one scientist's credibility on global warming, it has hardly taken the debate over climate change to the point where some conservatives seem bound and determined to push it: to discrediting otherwise overwhelming existence that Earth's climate is undergoing massive manmade change.

This is the point from which my difference with my colleague takes flight. He and other conservatives are insinuating that the Jones incident proves all science surrounding climate change is a hoax and liberals are using the hoax to try to bleed conservatives dry. Here's an excerpt from Roff's post:

You might think that the embarrassment accompanying the disclosure of these emails—even the liberal Jon Stewart is making fun of them on The Daily Show—would generate at least a pause in the [push to] adopt legislation that will cause billions of dollars to be sucked out of the American economy and kill thousands of jobs here at home. And you'd be wrong.

Even former New York Times conservative opinion columnist turned science writer John Tierney took a more reasoned approach:

The story behind that graph certainly didn't show that global warming was a hoax or a fraud, as some skeptics proclaimed, but it did illustrate another of their arguments: that the evidence for global warming is not as unequivocal as many scientists claim.

But are his fellow conservatives listening to him? Unfortunately, no. Well, they don't need to listen to their own or certainly to me for that matter.

But they ought to listen to the nonpartisan Associated Press, which reported over the weekend that global warming is not only a reality, it is costing many governments a lot of money. As the climate warms up and sea levels rise, governments are paying out or saving to adapt:

Cities, states and countries are scrambling to adapt or are at least talking about it and setting aside money for it. Some examples:

* England is strengthening the Thames River flood control barrier at a cost of around half a billion dollars.

* The Netherlands is making its crucial flood control system stronger.

* California is redesigning the gates that move water around the agriculturally vital Sacramento River Delta so that they can work when the sea level rises dramatically there.

* Boston elevated a sewage treatment plant to keep it from being flooded when sea level rises. New York City is looking at similar maneuvers for water plants.

* Chicago has a program to promote rooftop vegetation and reflective roofs that absorb less heat. That could keep the temperature down and ease heat waves.

* Engineers are installing "thermal siphons" along the oil pipeline in Alaska, which is built on permafrost that is thawing, to draw heat away from the ground.

* Researchers are uprooting moisture-loving trees along British Columbia's coastal rainforests and dropping their seedlings in the dry ponderosa pine forests of Idaho, where they are more likely to survive.

* Singapore plans to cut its flood-prone areas in half by 2011 by widening and deepening drains and canals and completing a $226 million dam at the mouth of the city's main river.

* In Thailand, there are large-scale efforts to protect places from rising sea levels. Monks at one temple outside Bangkok had to raise the floor by more than 3 feet.

* Desperately poor Bangladesh is spending more than $50 million on adaptation. It is trying to fend off the sea with flood control and buildings on stilts.

Tags:
global warming,
energy policy and climate change

Reader Comments Read all comments (23)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

http://nostradamo.pl/

Duefediendy of AL 11:10AM July 07, 2010

Climategate per se neither proves nor disproves climate change facts. Only science can do that and science shows that the claim that global temperature has been increasing since the late seventies as they tell us is not a fact. The temperature curves that show this warming from NASA, NOAA and Hadley Centre are all cooked and I show how it is done in the book "What Warming?" What Climategate does show is that they have taken control of scientific publishing and are able to stop publication of any opposing views. Naomi Oreskes made a survey of published articles on climate and decided that it overwhelmingly proved the existence of a "consensus" in favor of global warming. There was once also a consensus that warming is caused by a mysterious fluid called "caloric" that penetrates matter. That was proven wrong by one scientist thanks to whom thermodynamics became a real science. The Oreskes survey simply shows how effective their censorship has been. I know, for I have submitted articles to Science, Nature, and PNAS, only to have them returned without any comment or explanation. These are so-called "peer-reviewed" journals. If a peer reviewed journal refuses to send out articles sent to them for peer review the peer review system is broken. Their actions are tantamount to Lysenkoism that prevailed in the Stalinist Soviet Union. But now back to global warming. I used satellite temperature measurements to prove that there was no global warming in the eighties and nineties. This is the period of that "late twentieth century warming" at the very tip of that famous hockey stick. Right in the middle of it, in 1988, Hansen gets up in front of the Senate and testifies that global warming has started and that its cause is carbon dioxide in the air. With over ten television cameras trained on him this presentation became a media circus. Global warming was on every TV screen that night and the global warming movement it started led to the establishment of the IPCC that same year. Now consider this: all global warming actions from Kyoto to Copenhagen can trace their roots to this testimony of Hansen's in 1988. And his testimony is based upon a claim that warming existed then which is manifestly untrue. I checked official temperature records from NOAA about the start of this imaginary warming and found that it began in 1977, only ten years before Hansen's first talk in 1987. There has been no warming for the last ten years, a period as long as the warming period on which Hansen based his original claim. Checking the transcript of that hearing I also found that he was not content with such a short period and claimed that warming had been going on for twenty five years as he spoke. That is truly hotspur because twenty five years before his talk the world was cooling and magazines like Time and Newsweek were talking about a coming ice age. There is much more about climate in the book but you will have to study it on your own.

Arno Arrak of NY 9:47PM January 11, 2010

Being sceptical about climate change is not unreasonable, doing nothing about it is reckless

The consequences of unchecked global warming would be catastrophic, I believe our responsible leaders should give the planet the benefit of the doubt

manny of NY 7:29PM December 30, 2009

Bonnie Erbe

Bonnie Erbe

Bonnie Erbe is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report and hosts PBS's weekly news analysis program, To the Contrary with Bonnie Erbe. She also writes a weekly syndicated newspaper column for Scripps Howard News Service.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

JFK's Virtuoso Turn at the Bully Pulpit

Kennedy presented a radical idea: Peaceful coexistence.

advertisement