Fast Facts & Stats: The Climate Change Contrarians
Scientist Statements Defending the Science
Overview
Although the science is unequivocal about it, and political leaders around the world are in agreement that Climate Change is indeed really happening with serious consequences for society, the economy and environment, there is a minority of people who question the established science and related calls for responsible action.
These people have varying concerns, some of which are based on a general lack of understanding and some that are, unfortunately, based on a strategic interest in maintaining the status quo. These people are variously referred to, and refer to themselves as, 'skeptics', 'climate change deniers', or 'contrarians'.
While critical thinking is always advisable, there are individuals, organizations, and corporations that have been proven through rigorous investigation to be running well-funded campaigns to instill doubt in people who may not have assessed the evidence or do not understand the importance of seeking credible sources of information (see Identifying Credible Sources). An example of this investigation and proof can be found at ExxposeExxon and Desmogblog.
This Climate Response website has been created in response to the rhetoric typically repeated in media that misrepresents the facts on climate change.
Climate Change Deniers
Climate Change deniers have been out in full force of late. RealClimate, a commentary website on climate science by working climate scientists, has discredited denier claims over the years. For a catalogue of responses - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/#Responses
Desmogblog's extensive database of individuals involved in the global warming denial industry - http://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-denier-database
Foreign Policy Magazine also offers its FP Guide to Climate Skeptics - http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/02/25/the_fp_guide_to_climate_skeptics?page=0,0
Skeptical Science provides an overview of skeptic claims and keeps a running tally on what skeptics throw out there. - http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Mother Jones also provides a list of companies, PR firms and individuals that have been most vocal regarding climate change denial - http://motherjones.com/special-reports/2009/12/dirty-dozen-climate-change-denial.
For an expose on the libertarian think tank, the Fraser Institute, check out Squadron of Oil Exectutives on Fraser Institute Board of Directors in the Huffington Post (April 19, 2010) - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendan-demelle/squadron-of-oil-executive_b_543143.html
The CRU Hacking Conspiracy
On November 17, 2009 hackers uploaded 4000 files to the RealClimate.org website. All were stolen from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. They included email correspondence between a few of the scientists. Headlines around the world suggested that the 'evidence' proved that the scientists had been deceitful in their reporting on the science of climate change. The intention of this fabricated scandal was to cast a global doubt on the veracity of climate scientists on the science of climate change, just weeks before world leaders were to meet in Copenhagen with a mandate to determine new, binding climate change agreements.
The details of the situation are well documented on several websites, and summarized here only very briefly with links to key legitimate sources.
RealClimate.org, a website providing “climate science from climate scientists” - the unintended recipient of the stolen files - provides a level-headed commentary. Their follow-up entry briefly summarizes the key 'claims' of the hacker/deniers and refutes them quite simply.
The December 3, 2009 editorial in the journal Nature also helps to clarify the facts of this situation. This is one of the most highly respected scientific journals in the world. While the editor agrees with the analysis that there is nothing incriminating in the CRU files, obstructionist politicians will use it to stifle genuinely needed progress on climate change.
The December 4, 2009 article in New Scientist explains “Why there’s no sign of a climate conspiracy in hacked emails.” The article goes through the key arguments promoted by the 'climate change deniers' and clearly refutes each one.
Ben Strauss, PhD (Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University), wrote that this incident was a planned diversion from the serious issues that must be addressed on climate change.
Reuters news service ran an article November 25 by Stacy Feldman, MA (International & Public Affairs) further describes the episode as a smear campaign, quoting Dr. Trevor Davies, Vice-Chancellor of Research at CRU as saying that this was "the latest example of a sustained and, in some instances, a vexatious campaign" designed "to distract from reasoned debate" about urgent action governments must take to reverse climate change.
In April 2010, an Independent Panel dismissed charges of any wrong doing in relation to the content of the hacked emails - http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/14/oxburgh-uea-cleared-malpractice
The Intentional Spread of Misinformation
The hacking incident continues to be referenced in media headlines, articles, and Internet discussions as if the scientists had misled the public. Simple rhetoric and casual references without critical analysis can have the effect of reinforcing in the public mind the suggestion that there was actually a scandal. A few key points can quickly dispell the entire issue, but these are rarely, if ever, recognized by media.
1. Scientists, like other people, can get frustrated when others continue to ignore the proof generated by their hard work. When people get frustrated and are conversing privately, they often make remarks intended to vent their frustration, including the use of sarcasm and exaggeration. No foul play there.
2. When the scientists who were allegedly 'exposed' by the hacked emails suggested to each other that they'd like to prevent a particular study from being published, it should be understood immediately that the possibility of that happening is extraordinarily unlikely due to the nature of the peer review process (see section on Identifying Credible Sources). In fact, the article in question was published, and since fiercely criticised by most of the scientific community for its faulty analysis. This is an extended form of peer review among scholars, and when critical, is normally accompanied by thorough justification. No foul play there.
3. Hackers and their supporters immediately said this is further proof that we need transparency in scientific methods. Evidently they don't know much about scientific methods and the requirements of publication and disclosure. It is standard practice for all researchers to disclose their methods in publication, and the CRU scientists are no exception. The university commented that indeed, the data that was hacked had already been publicly available to anyone. The only limitation was data that they did not have the intellectual property rights for, and which they had only obtained licence to use. It would have been unlawful for them to make that publicly available. However, anyone could have contacted the rights holders and asked for access. No foul play there either, and in fact a very misleading declaration by those who asserted it. Sadly, many people who rightly agree with the principle of transparency simply accepted the assertion without checking the facts.
Himalayan Glacier Error
In January 2010, controversy struck again when it was discovered that the report from the second volume of the IPCC - working group two (WG2) - included an incorrect, and not properly referenced, statement that the Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035. This has led to public calls for the resignation of Rajendra Pachauri, Chair of the IPCC, and continued questioning of the Panel's overall credibility.
The Difference Between WG1 and WG2
Peer-reviewed science is used exclusively for the WG1 report. The data in the report of WG2 is supplied by social scientists and biologists and considered 'grey' data. WG2 is concerned with impacts, mitigation and socioeconomics related to climate change. The statement about the Himalayan glacier was referenced to a World Wildlife Fund 2005 report, and not thoroughly checked.
According to the scientists from Real Climate: "This [Himalayan glacier] claim did not make it into the summary for policy makers, nor the overall synthesis report, and so cannot be described as a ‘central claim’ of the IPCC." -http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/the-ipcc-is-not-infallible-shock/
That the IPCC did not try to suppress the error, but rather is attending to it, demonstrates an eagerness to mitigate such inaccuracies. - http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/himalaya-statement-20january2010.pdf
This controversy once again highlights frustration felt by scientists who feel that their credibilility is being put to question.
According to one unnamed IPCC author, reported in the Guardian: "This is a transient and manufactured crisis and will likely go away with time. What the science community needs is a few huge donors to throw millions of dollars behind PR campaigns to counter the propaganda out there. We are being attacked through baseless smear campaigns and we are not PR experts." - http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/08/climate-scientists-melting-glaciers
For more summaries on this issue, visit:
Real Climate - The IPCC is not infallible (shock!)
guardian.co.uk - Climate scientists hit out at 'sloppy' melting glaciers error
Phil Jones is director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), where e-mails were hacked. Climate change deniers have claimed that Jones conceded in a recent interview with the BBC that the world has not warmed since 1995.
The following is a transcript of the question and answer at the center of the claim:
Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
According Jones, statistical significance cannot be found in calculations for short periods, such as 1995 to 2009. They are found in calculations for longer periods. Jones demonstrates in the interview that since 1860, the global temperature has been increasing approximately 0.16 degrees Celsius per decade. For the full interview, visit: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm
Scientist Statements Defending the Science
In response to recent attacks against the findings of the IPCC, scientists have banded together to issue statements in defence of science.
Climate Change and the Integrity of Science - letter signed by 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences, printed in Science Magazine, May 7, 2010
Open Letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper - letter signed by 800 leading Canadians scientists, December 3, 2009
EPA Rejects Claims of Flawed Climate Science - July 29, 2010 Press Release
Contact Us
Send to a Friend
