The Climate Change Scandal
It will have been impossible to miss the scandal that erupted in December of 2009 following the stolen and leaked University of East Anglia (UEA) emails.
Thereafter, other attacks were made on the science of Climate Change, with suggestions that data had been falsified or selectively edited, information relied upon had been anecdotal, and the even that entire national and international bodies reporting on the area were institutionally biased.
The two biggest stories of the last month in this respect have been regarding one in which it was claimed that the Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 (in which there have been a number of errors highlighted), the other is on equally dramatic reports predicting huge Amazonian deforestation.
The damage done to Climate Change science both by errors and the frenzy whipped up around the world by its critics cannot be underestimated. Dubbed 'Seagate', fall out has already resulted in 25% of Britons stating that they do not believe in global warming (up from 15% this time last year), lead to the stepping down of the director of UEA's climatic research group, and has gone a long way to undermine confidence in the plethora of scientific evidence proving that global warming is actually taking place.
Naturally, the author does not believe that Climate Change is happening as a matter of faith or at a dogmatic level. He also welcomes the independent review pledged by the vice chancellor of UEA, Sir Muir Russell, who defended any conflict of interest in the role, stating:
"We are completely independent and have a free hand to pick our team and we have a free hand to pursue any line of research. Our job is to investigate scientific rigour, honesty, openness and due process."
The president of the Royal Society, Lord Rees of Ludlow, perhaps underlines the necessity of such a review best:
"It is important that people have the utmost confidence in the science of climate change. Where legitimate doubts are raised about any piece of science they must be fully investigated, that is how science works."
Nevertheless, in addition to impartial review on the science itself, an examination of the indignation and criticism surrounding the issue reveals equally disturbing information.
It was revealed in the Independent earlier this month that the so called 'smoking gun' quote of Sir John Houghton, former professor of Atmospheric Physics and Oxford and a key player in the founding of the IPCC, had been fabricated. The 1994 quote of "unless we announce disasters, no one will listen" had rapidly been built into a shibboleth around which Climate Change sceptics and deniers gathered, appearing on a weekly basis in any article seeking to cast doubt on the science behind climate change.
However, the supposed quote was only picked up in 2006 in a right wing Australian opinion piece critique of the Stern Report and then repeated until in the media thereon in.
Such is the damage that this fabricated quote is doing to Sir John's scientific reputation and the science of Climate Change, Sir John has considered legal action.
It is also of interest that following on from a previous article Pro Enviro ran on the backers behind Climate Change denial, the most vociferous and outspoken critics following the latest attacks have the same links. In the past few years, Exxon Mobil gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to a number of organisations including the 'Atlas Foundation' who support critics, publications, meetings and movements to discredit the idea of Climate Change. Indeed, it co-sponsored the infamous March 2009 meeting in New York called "Global Warming: Was It Ever Really a Crisis?", the organising group itself describing the event as "the world's largest-ever gathering of global warming sceptics".
In a matter of such huge importance, much reporting will be partisan and it would be utopian to think otherwise, which is exactly why the science needs to do the talking. The sooner we can see the wood for the trees, the better.
Print this page