[PAA-Discuss] The Real Scandal in the Hacked Climate Change E-mailsControversy

Mon Nov 30 11:50:25 EST 2009

"My Dear Lord Monkton: Pray tell, how much money, have you recieved from
ExxonMobil? Inquiring minds want to know, Sir."

>
> British Lord Stings Senators Rockefeller and Snowe: 'Uphold Free Speech or
> Resign'
>
> WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Dec. 18 -/E-Wire/-- Lord Monckton,
> Viscount of Brenchley, has sent an open letter to Senators Rockefeller
> (D-WV) and Snowe (R-Maine) in response to their recent open letter telling
> the CEO of ExxonMobil to cease funding climate-skeptic scientists.
> (http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061212_monckton.pdf).
>
>
> Lord Monckton, former policy adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher,
> writes: "You defy every tenet of democracy when you invite ExxonMobil to
> deny itself the right to provide information to 'senior elected and
> appointed government officials' who disagree with your opinion."
>
>
> In what The Charleston (WV) Daily Mail has called "an intemperate attempt
> to
> squelch debate with a hint of political consequences," Senators
> Rockefeller
> and Snowe released an open letter dated October 30 to ExxonMobil CEO, Rex
> Tillerson, insisting he end Exxon's funding of a "climate change denial
> campaign." The Senators labeled scientists with whom they disagree as
> "deniers," a term usually directed at "Holocaust deniers." Some voices on
> the political left have called for the arrest and prosecution of skeptical
> scientists. The British Foreign Secretary has said skeptics should be
> treated like advocates of Islamic terror and must be denied access to the
> media.
>
>
> Responds Lord Monckton, "Sceptics and those who have the courage to
> support
> them are actually helpful in getting the science right. They do not, as
> you
> improperly suggest, 'obfuscate' the issue: they assist in clarifying it by
> challenging weaknesses in the 'consensus' argument and they compel
> necessary
> corrections ... "
>
>
> Lord Monckton's Churchillian reproof continues, "You acknowledge the
> effectiveness of the climate sceptics. In so doing, you pay a compliment
> to
> the courage of those free-thinking scientists who continue to research
> climate change independently despite the likelihood of refusal of
> publication in journals that have taken preconceived positions; the hate
> mail and vilification from ignorant environmentalists; and the threat of
> loss of tenure in institutions of learning which no longer make any
> pretence
> to uphold or cherish academic freedom."
>
>
> Of Britain's Royal Society, a State-funded scientific body which, like the
> Senators, has publicly leaned on ExxonMobil, Lord Monckton said, "The
> Society's long-standing funding by taxpayers does not ensure any greater
> purity of motive or rigour of thought than industrial funding of
> scientists
> who dare to question whether 'climate change' will do any harm."
>
>
> To the Senators' comparison of ExxonMobil's funding of climate sceptics
> with
> tobacco-industry funding of research denying the link between smoking and
> lung cancer, Lord Monckton counters, "Your comparison of Exxon's funding
> of
> sceptical scientists and groups with the former antics of the tobacco
> industry is unjustifiable and unworthy of any credible elected
> representatives. Either withdraw that monstrous comparison forthwith, or
> resign so as not to pollute the office you hold."
>
>
> Concludes Lord Monckton, "I challenge you to withdraw or resign because
> your
> letter is the latest in what appears to be an internationally-coordinated
> series of maladroit and malevolent attempts to silence the voices of
> scientists and others who have sound grounds, rooted firmly in the peer-
> reviewed scientific literature, to question what you would have us believe
> is the unanimous agreement of scientists worldwide that global warming
> will
> lead to what you excitedly but unjustifiably call 'disastrous' and
> 'calamitous' consequences."
>
>
>
>   _____
>
> From: discuss-bounces at paa-tx.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at paa-tx.org] On
> Behalf Of Ron and Kris Graham
> Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2009 7:15 AM
> To: discuss at paa-tx.org
> Subject: [PAA-Discuss] The Real Scandal in the Hacked Climate Change
> E-mailsControversy
>
>
>
> http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=1341
> <http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=1341&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=fe
> ed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climateandcapitalism%2FpEtD+%28Climate+and+Capitalis
> m%29>
> &utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climateandcapita
> lism%2FpEtD+%28Climate+and+Capitalism%29
>
>
>
>
> The real scandal in the hacked climate change e-mails controversy
>
>
> November 28, 2009
>
> To doubt the greenhouse effect or to doubt major anthropogenic climate
> change is about as sensible as doubting anthropogenic lung cancer
>
> by Rupert Read
> (Our Kingdom, Nov 25, 2009
> <http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/rupert-read/real-scandal-in-hacked-
> climate-change-e-mails-controversy> )
>
> It is day six of the 'scandal' over the hacked emails from the Climatic
> Research Unit at the University of East Anglia's School of Environmental
> Sciences, in which a thousand or so private email messages between climate
> scientists were hacked into and made public. According to the ostriches
> hoping that Copenhagen will fail, these emails demonstrate that
> climate-science is in serious trouble. Nothing could be further from the
> truth.
>
> If you need a full backgrounder on the 'scandal', see the University of
> East
> Anglia
> <http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate>
> 's statement, which includes a direct rebuttal of the single seemingly
> most-damaging e-mail, which read:
>
> I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to
> each
> series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for
> Keith's to hide the decline.
>
> See also the Guardian
> <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-
> leaked-emails> 's initial coverage, and Carbon Fixated's post on
> Newtongate
> for a brilliant historical parallel and parod
> <http://carbonfixated.com/newtongate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-renaiss
> ance-and-enlightenment-thinking/> y of James Delingpole's hysteria
> <http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the
> -final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/>  in the
> Telegraph.
>
> The University of East Anglia is where I work and teach. The 'scandal'
> here
> has I think been gotten out of all proportion in some of the media, old
> and
> new. I have now read a good number of the 'worst' of the hacked emails. I
> also know a couple of the protagonists personally, and for human-interest
> value the hacked emails certainly do offer some tidbits. But when the dust
> settles, I predict that the climate-deniers will be left holding onto
> hardly
> anything here.
>
> There is so far as I can tell at this stage no significant scientific
> scandal, and most importantly absolutely no reason to doubt any of the
> fundamentals of the science of man-made climate change here, just a few
> unpleasant or silly or (at worst) unwise and bad-practice emails.
> Scientists
> aren't angels; like the rest of us, they sometimes get angry with their
> detractors, and even work to marginalise them, and so on.
>
> Some good that may come out of this is:
>
> 1.	For more people to realise that scientists are simply human, and
> that science is not holy writ, but to realise too that these facts and the
> poor behaviour at times of some scientists doesn't in itself cast any
> doubt
> over the central findings of their research. To doubt the greenhouse
> effect
> or to doubt major anthropogenic climate change is about as sensible as
> doubting anthropogenic lung cancer (The two cases are actually quite
> similar
> - both involve pollution of a finite air-system; and both have seen
> long-lasting and well-funded campaigns of denial. The smoking companies
> got
> away with denying anthropogenic lung cancer for a whole generation, before
> they were finally smoked out.)
>
> 2.	There are quite a lot of calls now for the full data-sets which the
> best British climate scientists base their work and their predictions on
> to
> be made fully public. That would I think be welcome, and the UEA
> climate-scientists should step up efforts to realise this aspiration - it
> would among other things dispose of the climate-sceptics' silly
> accusations
> of there being a conspiracy here, of something big being hidden.
>
> 3.	There do seem to be a few instances in the hacked emails - if these
> particular ones are genuine - of clearly unethical and possibly unlawful
> behaviour. If this hacking episode means that there is less of that in
> future, then that will of course be a very positive result. That is
> presumably why the UEA administration have now initiated an independent
> review, "which will address the issue of data security, an assessment of
> how
> we responded to a deluge of Freedom of Information requests, and any other
> relevant issues which the independent reviewer advises should be
> addressed."
>
>
> As a philosopher of science, it worries me to see the level of ignorance
> displayed by many of those who are jumping all over this leaked
> information
> as if it undermines the science around global warming. Except possibly in
> some literally marginal ways, it simply does not, once you understand the
> context of most of these emails. Furthermore, as a commenter said on my
> blog,
>
> "I would like to be able to inspect all e-mails ever sent or received by
> (a)
> anyone connected with the major oil companies [that funded climate-denial
> organisations], (b) at least a few of those who have been most vocal in
> their scepticism to man-made climate change."
>
> A reasonable request.
>
> But changes 1 through 3 are nevertheless potentially good news for science
> and for all of us. To find out more, the best place to go is Real Climate
> <http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/> .
>
> Meanwhile, several UEA and other scientists are having to change their
> bank
> accounts, their passports, etc., because the hackers thoughtlessly
> publicised emails with details of those things in them. Thoughtless and
> heartless, as well as (obviously) illegal.
>
> As I've said: there are some things in the e-mails that shouldn't be
> there.
> I think that there will need to be more apologies, before this thing is
> over, and some changes of future practice.
>
> But the real scandal is not what is in the emails; nor is it even the
> illegal and thoughtless hacking operation.
>
> The real scandal is that, as we run up to Copenhagen, much of the media
> and
> blogosphere is pre-occupied with a few minor pieces of dirty-laundry in
> some
> e-mails, when the very fate of humankind is at stake.
>
> The real scandal is that climate-change scepticism has brought us to this
> point, where only a few years separate us from the likely onset of runaway
> climate change.
>
> Respect to any climate-deniers who invest all their pension funds in
> seashore hotels in the Maldives. otherwise, they should step aside, and
> let
> the work of saving the future begin.
>
> The real scandal is that the human race has neither paid enough attention
> to
> the climate scientists nor changed its (by which I mean our) way of life
> so
> that that life can go on.
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.709 / Virus Database: 270.14.86/2533 - Release Date: 11/28/09
> 13:34:00
>
>
> ---------------
> Progressive Action Alliance  http://progressiveactionalliance.org/
> Discuss mailing list   Discuss at paa-tx.org
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, access the archives, or change your options on
> this list, go to:
> http://paa-tx.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_paa-tx.org
>
> To reply only to the person posting this note, use "Reply".
> To reply so that everyone on this list receives your note, use "Reply
> All".
> Check the "To:" field in your message, before sending, to ensure it goes
> to the correct address.
>