About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Quick Fact: WSJ's Strassel calls stolen emails a "gold mine" for climate change skeptics

December 11, 2009 11:52 am ET — 20 Comments

In a Wall Street Journal column about the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) endangerment finding on greenhouse gas emissions, Kim Strassel wrote that "[i]ndustry groups are gearing up for a legal onslaught; and don't underestimate their prospects. The leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit in England alone are a gold mine for those who want to challenge the science underlying the theory of manmade global warming."

From Strassel's December 11 column:

All the more so, in Congress's view, because the EPA "command and control" threat may yet prove hollow. Now that the endangerment finding has become reality, the litigation is also about to become real. Green groups pioneered the art of environmental lawsuits. It turns out the business community took careful notes.

Industry groups are gearing up for a legal onslaught; and don't underestimate their prospects. The leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit in England alone are a gold mine for those who want to challenge the science underlying the theory of manmade global warming.

FACT: Scientists say nothing in the reportedly stolen emails undermines climate change science

1,700 scientists sign statement reaffirming position that warming is "unequivocal." Following the release of the reportedly stolen emails, more than 1,700 scientists from the United Kingdom signed a statement responding "to the ongoing questioning of core climate science and methods." It said: "We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. The evidence and the science are deep and extensive. They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity. That research has been subject to peer review and publication, providing traceability of the evidence and support for the scientific method." It continued:

The science of climate change draws on fundamental research from an increasing number of disciplines, many of which are represented here. As professional scientists, from students to senior professors, we uphold the findings of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which concludes that 'Warming of the climate system is unequivocal' and that 'Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations'.

Nature: "Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real." A December 2 editorial in the science journal Nature stated: "Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real -- or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails." Also from the editorial:

The stolen e-mails have prompted queries about whether Nature will investigate some of the researchers' own papers. One e-mail talked of displaying the data using a 'trick' -- slang for a clever (and legitimate) technique, but a word that denialists have used to accuse the researchers of fabricating their results. It is Nature's policy to investigate such matters if there are substantive reasons for concern, but nothing we have seen so far in the e-mails qualifies.

AMS: Impact on climate change science of emails "very limited." Following the release of the reportedly stolen emails, the American Meteorological Society (AMS) reaffirmed its Statement on Climate Change, stating that it "is based on a robust body of research reported in the peer-reviewed literature." AMS further stated: "For climate change research, the body of research in the literature is very large and the dependence on any one set of research results to the comprehensive understanding of the climate system is very, very small. Even if some of the charges of improper behavior in this particular case turn out to be true -- which is not yet clearly the case -- the impact on the science of climate change would be very limited."

AAAS reaffirms position on climate change. In a December 4 statement, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) reaffirmed its position, "based on multiple lines of scientific evidence" that "global climate change caused by human activities is now underway, and it is a growing threat to society." AAAS chief executive officer Alan I. Leshner stated, "The vast preponderance of evidence, based on years of research conducted by a wide array of different investigators at many institutions, clearly indicates that global climate change is real, it is caused largely by human activities, and the need to take action is urgent."

Prominent scientists send letter to Congress "to set the record straight." In a December 4 letter to Congress, 29 prominent scientists, including 11 members of the National Academy of Scientists, stated, "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." Noting the "multiple independent lines of evidence" supporting the case for manmade climate change, the scientists stated, "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."

UCS: "The e-mails provide no information that would affect the scientific understanding of climate change." The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) has stated that "[t]he e-mails provide no information that would affect the scientific understanding of climate change, as many contrarians are falsely claiming. For years, thousands of scientists working at climate research centers around the world have carefully and rigorously reached a consensus on the extent of climate change, the urgency of the problem, and the role human activity plays in causing it." UCS further stated: "The findings of the USGCRP, IPCC and other scientific bodies are based on the work of thousands of scientists from hundreds of research institutions. The University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) is just one among many such research institutions. Even without data from CRU, there is still an overwhelming body of evidence that human activity triggering dangerous levels of global warming."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by SLRTX (December 11, 2009 12:31 pm ET)
      7 1
      Leave it to the rabid right to find a few flakes of fool's gold and call it a gold mine.

      Beck's got some gold to sell. Go find your goldmine there.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by thaneb (December 11, 2009 12:53 pm ET)
      2  
      Stolen emails--no chain of custody problem there.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by angels4light (December 14, 2009 10:05 am ET)
           
        That is an excellent point! I think that the scientists who have been quoted out of context have rendered that point moot, however, because they have confirmed by concession when they explained how their emails were taken out of context.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by ScienceBuff (December 11, 2009 1:09 pm ET)
      5 2
      I know we keep going back to the creationist analogy, but that's because it's so apt. The denialists are using these the way creationists used Piltdown Man. The creationists pretended that the exposure of Piltdown Man as fake was a devastating blow to the foundations of evolutionary theory, when in fact it meant next to nothing. We're getting the same thing here. Denialists are pretending that the fraud they imagine they see in those emails somehow nullifies the mountains of evidence that exist outside of anything discussed there.

      The analogy with Piltdown Man falls apart in that it was a real fraud and the emails and program code notes don't actually show any real fraud.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (December 11, 2009 1:38 pm ET)
        4 1
        Good analogy, even with the fact that it breaks down. The CRU emails ( as well as the computer code, or whatever else they're running up the flagpole) would be comparable and meaningless if they were actually what the right wingers are trying to say they are.

        A more direct analogy might be to an image of Jesus on a tortilla or a grilled cheese sandwich. If you really want to see fraud or corruption in those emails, you're going to see it in spite of any explanations or facts.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by ScienceBuff (December 11, 2009 2:36 pm ET)
          6 2
          That's also a very good analogy, it just took it in a different direction than I intended to go. My mind keeps going back to creationists because I spent so much time debating them on the old Lycos boards. [I miss some of those people. It's funny how you can develop a level of friendship on anonymous message boards] Another example has to do with Trenberth's "travesty" comment. It reminds me of creationists who take quotes from scientists who mention gaps in the fossil record and expand that to suggest that the fossil record fails to support evolution, a clear falsehood. In the same way, they take Trenberth complaining about the absence of certain kinds of data he wishes he had to make his energy budgets balance and they expand it to pretend that none of the data climatologists have collected really show us anything about climate change, another clear falsehood.

          I could go on and on with the analogy, it comes to mind so often. I've kind of wondered, if we could map out the denialists and the creationists how much would they overlap? My bet is that, while most of the denialists might not also be creationists, almost all of the creationists would be denialists. They're cut from the same cloth.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by boulderhippy (December 11, 2009 3:09 pm ET)
            1 1
            Another analogy presented itself just yesterday,

            I was at the airport and noticed some young men representing Greenpeace harassing travelers in an attempt to support their GW cause. I remember being harassed at airports by Hare Krishnas in the 1970's.

            I was struck by the simularities. They both are cults using young men to proselytize to wary travelers. The problem I have is that the Greenies didn't give out flowers. They also didn't have the commitment to shave their heads and to wear robes.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by mefirst (December 12, 2009 5:12 pm ET)
            3  
            the thing is that you will never satisfy the "fossil gap" people. because every couple years there is a discovery that partially fills in one of the "missing links", but they still claim there is a "gap". there may be, but it is less of a gap with the new discoveries. i also think that the denialists and the creationists are mostly peas in a pod. in fact, republicans are far more likely to deny man made warming, and they generally are the more fundamentalist. there is always the claim that global warming proponents are "following the money". but you can bet that any credible scientist who could make a good case that it is not greenhouse gases causing warming would be very handsomely rewarded by the energy companies.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by Appleboy (December 11, 2009 1:45 pm ET)
        7 1
        I've noticed recently that many like to criticize programs/systems by showing imperfections in these programs/systems which by their nature (mostly because of human involvement) are incapable of perfection. If there's a tiny flaw the whole thing is worthless. By this standard the system of capitalism should have been abandoned along time ago.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by ScienceBuff (December 11, 2009 2:20 pm ET)
          3  
          Very good points, but they'd never recognize that tendency in themselves. Or, at least, they'd never admit to it.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by skatscan5624 (December 11, 2009 4:31 pm ET)
          3  
          By that standard our military is very useless.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Übermensch (December 11, 2009 1:32 pm ET)
      3  
      speaking of doubters

      [http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx38/Ubermensch-MM/FN-PalinGore-WeeWee.png]
      Report Abuse
    • Author by SpacePedestrian (December 11, 2009 3:17 pm ET)
      1  
      Gold mine? More like an oil field. One they can pump and pollute this green Earth with.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by gs-425 (December 11, 2009 4:14 pm ET)
        1
      It has been exposed as a fraud. Of course anyone with common sense knew that anyway.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by military90building (December 12, 2009 4:28 am ET)
        1
      Sorry denialists,

      Woops, I deleted the original source data sets because my hard drive was full and I needed the room for more grant applications. -- Now that's the real gold mine.

      Raw data can only be interpreted by us "Climate Change Researchers". Take our word for it. 99% of our scientists in climate research centers have 100% consensus. Silly 1% are denialist clown scientists with no grant money.

      -- The weather is changing, stop solar cycles NOW. The capitalists are the cause. I stand behind our findings.

      -Dr. Phil Jones -- PHD, LSD, THC, MDA


      Report Abuse
    • Author by angels4light (December 14, 2009 10:02 am ET)
        1
      While it is true that the scientists "say" that there is no story here, basically, it is also true that this is a very weak fact with which to refute the story.

      It would be better to show how the stolen emails are being distorted, or how they show in fact the opposite of what is being suggested.

      Personally, I believe the truth about humans being the cause of global climate change is somewhere in the middle of the two extremes being debated. I think we are contributors, because we are part of the overall climate system, but we are not the cause. To claim we are the cause is arrogance, elevating the importance of the species and ignoring the importance of every other thing in the world. Likewise, to claim we are not contributors in any way is just as arrogant, suggesting we are somehow not having any impact on the rest of the global system we are part of.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Feathertight (December 14, 2009 11:11 am ET)
        1
      Gotta love it when you throw a rock of "real truth" into the liberal crowd. They squeal better than a bunch of hogs. lol
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.