Climategate - interview with Phil Jones

February 15, 2010 4:33 AM

BBC Interview with Phil Jones, victim of the Climategate Scandal.
posted by diwolf (64 comments total)

I can see some considering your use of the word 'victim' to be controversial, to say the least.
posted by Hartham's Hugging Robots at 4:52 AM on February 15, 2010 [4 favorites]

On further reflection, I oughtn't to make such a vague statement about a complex and sensitive matter. My view is that he is largely a victim (even if some of his internal communication was... incautious, notwithstanding the expectation of privacy). I was simply trying to make the point that by using the word 'victim' in your brief description you're coming out of the blocks with a position that's gonna get some people pretty exercised...

maybe that's your plan, I'll shut up now
posted by Hartham's Hugging Robots at 5:02 AM on February 15, 2010

I was simply trying to make the point that by using the word 'victim' in your brief description you're coming out of the blocks with a position that's gonna get some people pretty exercised...

Let them be, I say.
posted by Skeptic at 5:03 AM on February 15, 2010

If you deserve a slap on the wrist, and you are instead buried in the sand, covered with honey, and have fire ants released on you, all to score cheap political points, you're a victim.
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:28 AM on February 15, 2010 [26 favorites]

I feel very sorry for this poor man. Literally the worst thing that thousands of people pouring over his private emails could find was a mention of the word 'trick' whose use they misunderstood.

If anything, I instead feel reassured that the communication systems behind an important research hub stood up to intense, predatory, and unexpected scrutiny. This indicates good science; and, if anything, disproves dull claims of conspiracy.
posted by stepheno at 5:40 AM on February 15, 2010 [5 favorites]

I don't understand this note at the bottom of the article: Some brief answers have been slightly expanded following more information from UEA..

Expanded by whom? Does this mean that the journalist has (re)written parts of the answers that Prof Jones gave? If so, without highlighting exactly which answers were changed and in what way, how are we expected to believe that any given part of this interview is what Prof Jones actually wrote?
posted by metaBugs at 6:12 AM on February 15, 2010

Literally the worst thing that thousands of people pouring over his private emails could find was a mention of the word 'trick' whose use they misunderstood.

I think it's also fair to argue that he and his university epically mishandled the fallout from this affair, and that it is an obligation on those in his position not to do that. It's not OK for publicly funded scientists to disdain the public relations and communications side of their jobs as somehow beneath them or irrelevant or unnecessary, especially in such a crucial area. He's still been appallingly treated though, and his missteps shouldn't be taken as a win for the climate denial conspiracy theorists.
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 6:24 AM on February 15, 2010

how are we expected to believe that any given part of this interview is what Prof Jones actually wrote?

It's oddly phrased I agree, but in combination with the note at the top I think you can assume that it just means all of this has been vetted by, even conducted via, UEA's press office, who may have done some of the phrasing on Jones's behalf but with his agreement, as is completely routine with public statements to the media. I'd be very surprised if the journalist was putting words into Jones's mouth.
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 6:36 AM on February 15, 2010

Re. putting words into Jones' mouth: the unashamedly dishonest account of this interview by the Daily Mail is already making the rounds of denialists' inboxes.

May this serve as a warning against ever again linking to the Daily Fail.
posted by Skeptic at 6:42 AM on February 15, 2010 [8 favorites]

May this serve as a warning against ever again linking to the Daily Fail.

Absolutely. I would be very surprised if Roger Harrabin at the BBC had made anything up, but I am not in the least surprised that the Daily Mail would do so. (The clarificatory endnote on the BBC page is itself an example of the kind of transparency the Daily Mail would never bother with in the first place.)
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 6:52 AM on February 15, 2010

thousands of people pouring over his private emails

How were they liquefied?

Oh my god. It's SOYLENT GREEN?
posted by fourcheesemac at 7:04 AM on February 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

An analysis of what we learned from the climategate scandal.
posted by leibniz at 7:20 AM on February 15, 2010 [2 favorites]

"It's not OK for publicly funded scientists to disdain the public relations..." i disagree. he is a scientist not some PR muppet. can you imagine Cantor or Turing doing PR?

also: The Sun (british red top) says Ice age in 2015. must be true.
posted by marienbad at 7:26 AM on February 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

The whole faux "scandal" reinforces something I've long believed: do not commit anything to email that you don't want the world knowing. More generally, don't post anything to the internet non-anonymously that you don't want tied to you forever, and be damn cautious about stuff you post with the expectation of anonymity.

I've got no political future or aspirations, I figure the pseudo-anonymity I get here is enough that I feel comfortable saying what I do. But if I were ever planning on running for public office, there's no way I'd be posting what I do.

Work email, especially, must always be assumed to be public.
posted by sotonohito at 8:04 AM on February 15, 2010

Literally the worst thing that thousands of people pouring over his private emails could find was a mention of the word 'trick' whose use they misunderstood.

My thoughts exactly. If this is the supposed proof of poor faith, I'm unimpressed. I think it unlikely that a search of the emails of the Heartland Institute or the AEI for evidence of poor faith would yield such meagre returns.
posted by Jakey at 8:17 AM on February 15, 2010

"It's not OK for publicly funded scientists to disdain the public relations..." i disagree. he is a scientist not some PR muppet. can you imagine Cantor or Turing doing PR?

Don't get me wrong: 99.99% of the wrongdoing here is on the part of the privacy-invading hackers and the hysterical climate change deniers. But this snooty attitude about science is like lighter fluid to their fire. It is a modern reality that people working in highly politically sensitive fields, using public money, need to pay a great deal of attention to the context of their work, who pays for it, and how it's consumed. This might be a dismaying truth about the world today, but it is a truth. This work is being released into a social context where huge and apparently growing numbers of people think it's nonsense, or fraudulent, or that scientists with vested interests are being less than candid with people whose lives are increasingly being affected by efforts to control climate change. To take account of that context is not to cede ground to the deniers; on the contrary, it'll be crucial to having any hope of defeating them.
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 8:42 AM on February 15, 2010 [2 favorites]

You know, those very straightforward, well-researched questions and extremely frank answers. This is a good interview. If only Politicians were this straightforward, and political journalists this well-prepared.
posted by Rumple at 8:47 AM on February 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

Thank heavens this socialistic fraud has been exposed. Now we can go back to putting our trust in more credible scientists, like Fred Singer and Michael Crichton.
posted by gompa at 8:48 AM on February 15, 2010 [2 favorites]

Has anyone identified who hacked the e-mails?
posted by atchafalaya at 10:21 AM on February 15, 2010

Has anyone identified who hacked the e-mails?

No, but there are unexpected suspects.
posted by Skeptic at 10:32 AM on February 15, 2010

You know, those very straightforward, well-researched questions and extremely frank answers. This is a good interview. If only Politicians were this straightforward, and political journalists this well-prepared.

This was a good interview. I'm a "denier" but I was as impressed by the thoroughness of his answers as I was by the questions -- which left almost nothing unasked. It was a model of how such an interview should be conducted on both sides.
posted by Faze at 10:48 AM on February 15, 2010

"It's not OK for publicly funded scientists to disdain the public relations..." i disagree. he is a scientist not some PR muppet. can you imagine Cantor or Turing doing PR?

We keep expecting people who aren't Sagan or Feynman to be Sagan and Feynman.
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:50 AM on February 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

I think Jones has, in many ways, gotten a raw deal. It's also obvious that right-wingers are using things like this to try to discredit the entire climate change body of science in a completely unsupportable way.

That said, Phil Jones is an idiot. How can anyone defend not keeping the raw data on which you base much of your science? Jones claims that some of the raw data can be reconstructed using various blah blah blah. Fine. That's still kinda dodgy, but okay. But some of it he says they replaced the raw data with adjusted data for various reasons. That's completely unacceptable. Not using adjusted data. That is commonplace. But not keeping, anywhere, the original raw data?

It's terrible science.

Raw deal? Sure. Great scientist? No.
posted by Justinian at 11:29 AM on February 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

This was a good interview. I'm a "denier" but I was as impressed by the thoroughness of his answers as I was by the questions -- which left almost nothing unasked.

That's a little like saying "I am impressed at the thoroughness of Buzz Aldrin's answers, even though I believe the moon is actually Galacticus's spaceship, and we could not travel to it without being devoured."
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:35 AM on February 15, 2010 [10 favorites]

I know you people don't want to read it but go here
posted by A189Nut at 12:24 PM on February 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

Anthony Watts? The house climate change denier for FOX? what, precisely, do you think we would get out if reading your link?
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:35 PM on February 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

Thanks A189Nut, for providing exactly the same information as the original FPP, only with the helpful interpretations of some guy who's obviously trying to spin the responses in the most damaging ways possible. I've said it before and I'll say it again: we need more people with an agenda spinning news and information for us. There are just far too many disinterested, well-meaning parties at the table for our democratic political systems to function properly.
posted by saulgoodman at 12:41 PM on February 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

He shouldn't be described as the victim of the climategate scandal. He should be described as the victim of the climategate hoax

On further reflection, I oughtn't to make such a vague statement about a complex and sensitive matter. My view is that he is largely a victim (even if some of his internal communication was... incautious -- Hartham's Hugging Robots

What exactly is the problem with being 'incautious' in internal emails? Many of the quotes that got a lot of play weren't even about the overall temperature.

That said, Phil Jones is an idiot. How can anyone defend not keeping the raw data on which you base much of your science? Jones claims that some of the raw data can be reconstructed using various blah blah blah. Fine. That's still kinda dodgy, but okay. But some of it he says they replaced the raw data with adjusted data for various reasons. That's completely unacceptable. Not using adjusted data. That is commonplace. But not keeping, anywhere, the original raw data? -- Justinian

None of the origional raw data was lost. Just their collection of raw data from around the world. Anyone can reassemble it and reproduce the experiments if they want too. And apparently this was collected in the 1980s, when disk space was far more expensive then it is today.

Raw deal? Sure. Great scientist? No. -- Justinian

Well, who are you to judge, exactly?

The whole thing is total bullshit.
posted by delmoi at 1:18 PM on February 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

None of the origional raw data was lost. Just their collection of raw data from around the world. Anyone can reassemble it and reproduce the experiments if they want too.

That's true of the weather station data; as I said, some of the data can be reconstructed. But my understanding is that there is other data for which the original raw data truly is completely lost and only the adjusted data remains. That's what I'm talking about.

It's certainly difficult to weed out the facts from all the crap spewed by the right wing noise machine, so I'd be perfectly happy to find this isn't the case. But it's what I''m getting from this comment by Jones:

If we have “lost” any data it is the following:

1. Station series for sites that in the 1980s we deemed then to be affected by either urban biases or by numerous site moves, that were either not correctable or not worth doing as there were other series in the region.

2. The original data for sites for which we made appropriate adjustments in the temperature data in the 1980s. We still have our adjusted data, of course, and these along with all other sites that didn’t need adjusting.

If, in fact, Jones is referring here to the data which can be reconstructed, then it is indeed just a right wing smear. But in context my reading is that this refers to other data than that which can be reconstructed from the original GHCN data.
posted by Justinian at 1:49 PM on February 15, 2010

If he was being deceptive it would be simple to say that the corrected data was the real data. So for the conclusions to be erroneous, he must be incompetent and deceptive, or incompetent and truthful, along with the vast majority of climate scientists in the world, from multiple countries, speaking multiple languages. It is unlikely that an entire profession is incompetent--even economists provide some utility after all--so the only likely solution is that he is competent and truthful.

As for the people complaining about his handling of the situation, do you think a public relations victory was even possible in this case? The right wing leaning media is well funded and has spent decades laying the groundwork of anti-intellectualism. Is it possible for someone who is an amateur at public relations to come out the better in such a confrontation? How would you see it occurring?
posted by Zalzidrax at 2:02 PM on February 15, 2010

Great discussion here. It was my first post and I am really surprised.

In my eyes he is still a victim. Isnt he the only one who had to step down until now?
What about the media? What will be with the politicians who impose taxes if the next 15 years are still not really warming?
Media, lobbyist and politicians put enormous pressure on scientists like Jones and seduced him with the reward of popularity.

Maybe he was all the time way too naive.

I am a denier of CO2 induced global warming but at the same time I do think we should change our way of living, production, consumption.
posted by diwolf at 2:08 PM on February 15, 2010

That's true of the weather station data; as I said, some of the data can be reconstructed. But my understanding is that there is other data for which the original raw data truly is completely lost and only the adjusted data remains. That's what I'm talking about.

Your understanding based on what?
posted by delmoi at 2:41 PM on February 15, 2010

diwolf: Nothing in the interview, or any other factual data actually presented indicates he actually did anything wrong, or that global warming isn't real, or whatever. Also, he has not had to step down at all. Rather, there is a review board looking over the issues.
posted by delmoi at 2:45 PM on February 15, 2010

Here are the Inquiry's terms of reference. A little bit more than a "Review Board"...

The Independent Review will:
1. Examine the hacked e-mail exchanges, other relevant e-mail exchanges and any other information held at CRU to determine whether there is any evidence of the manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice and may therefore call into question any of the research outcomes.

2. Review CRU’s policies and practices for acquiring, assembling, subjecting to peer review and disseminating data and research findings, and their compliance or otherwise with best scientific practice.

3. Review CRU’s compliance or otherwise with the University’s policies and practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act (‘the FOIA’) and the Environmental Information Regulations (‘the EIR’) for the release of data.

4. Review and make recommendations as to the appropriate management, governance and security structures for CRU and the security, integrity and release of the data it holds .
posted by A189Nut at 3:05 PM on February 15, 2010

And some of the data has been lost. Yes, it could be reconstructed, laboriously, but it says little for the data management at the CRU that it would be necessary.
posted by A189Nut at 3:07 PM on February 15, 2010

Your understanding based on what?

Based on Jones' own quote in which he says "If we have lost any data it is the following: ... 2. The original data for sites for which we made appropriate adjustments in the temperature data in the 1980s. "

I don't know how to read that except as saying that the original data is lost and only the adjusted data remains. This, from context, appears to be talking about data that cannot be reconstructed from original GHCN weather data.
posted by Justinian at 3:20 PM on February 15, 2010

I've said it before, but I'm so glad I work in a relatively obscure field that doesn't have trillion-dollar industries and whole governments with a vested interested in assassinating my character.
posted by dirigibleman at 3:31 PM on February 15, 2010 [2 favorites]

Sigh, the data that was "lost" was the CRU's copy of the original data, not the original data itself. The original data can still be found at the various national meteorological agencies where it has always resided.

Even if this original data were lost, it plays but a tiny part in the climate change argument. There are multiple lines of evidence both direct (thermometer-based) and proxy (tree rings, ice cores, lake and ocean bottom cores, etc.) that have recorded past climate changes. In addition, the physics of anthropogenic global warming have been well known for a long time. From yesterday's entry on Real Climate "The greenhouse effect was discovered in 1824 by Fourier, the heat trapping properties of CO2 and other gases were first measured by Tyndall in 1859, the climate sensitivity to CO2 was first computed in 1896 by Arrhenius, and by the 1950s the scientific foundations were pretty much understood."
posted by plastic_animals at 3:37 PM on February 15, 2010 [6 favorites]

And yet science advances and the orthodoxies of Fourier, et al are revised. Peculiar to close down discussion and assume they would not be - and be sure, that is what has happened.
posted by A189Nut at 4:02 PM on February 15, 2010

Poor bastard. This whole affair has demonstrated the lengths denialists are prepared to go to on their misguided crusade. The real "revelation" is the abuse of FOI laws as a form of political, professional and personal harassment, but no one seems keen on covering that story.
posted by smoke at 4:16 PM on February 15, 2010 [3 favorites]

Professor Jones has done himself a great service by doing this interview, it does however, particularly looking at the length and significance of multiple warmings and the paleoclimatology give a lot of impetus to the 'lukewarmer' position.

The data plays a huge part. There is a difference between the satelite warming data and the land record of about one third of the warming. That's significant. In the Climategate emails Tom Wigley wrote:

We probably need to say more about this. Land warming since
1980 has been twice the ocean warming -- and skeptics might
claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important.

This issue was addressed in the Klotzbach et al paper. This was trashed as nonsense by alarmists when it came out, it turns out that in private climatologists were expressing different opinions.

The fact that the data hasn't been handled well is important. This is a trillion dollar question but the fact that data retention that would cost millions hasn't been done is a real issue.

The dendroclimatology stuff is under real suspicion. The Climategate emails had a number of scientists expressing their serious reservations about the issue. Again from the climategate emails we have a climatologist writing:

Without trying to prejudice this work, but also because of what I
almost think I know to be the case, the results of this study will
show that we can probably say a fair bit about <1>100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know
with certainty that we know fuck-all).

So you have people in private saying they don't buy the idea that we can say with much certainty that temperatures are exceptionally hot but in public this is not what was being pushed. This is important. If medieval man could handle temperatures perhaps 2-3 K higher then we will be able to easily.

If the magnitude of AGW is small it's not worth spending trillions to attempt to stop it. It could well be easier to just adjust to it and research alternative energy.

The impact of the climategate emails has been huge. In a recent BBC poll the proporion of the UK population saying that GW was conclusively proven to be due to humans has dropped from 41 percent to 25 percent. Of course science is not democratic (unless according to some people truth is determined by polling scientists in some field in some way). But for the policy issue this change in opinion is crucial.

After climategate, the failure of the Copenhagen talks, the serious problems in the WG2 section and the indication of no faith of India in the IPCC it's surely time to change the approach.
posted by sien at 4:44 PM on February 15, 2010

If the magnitude of AGW is small it's not worth spending trillions to attempt to stop it. It could well be easier to just adjust to it and research alternative energy.

What about this?


the serious problems in the WG2 section

Serious problems? Have you read plastic_animals' link to RealClimate?
posted by Bangaioh at 4:52 PM on February 15, 2010

It is hard to know what you're trying to say with "and the orthodoxies of Fourier, et al are revised."

If anything, the Solomon paper that Revkin is writing about affirms Fourier's observation that the greenhouse effect exists. But, really, that the greenhouse effect exists is incontrovertible. There are direct laboratory measurements of the IR absorbing power of CO2, water vapor, methane, etc. Without the greenhouse effect the oceans would be frozen solid.

The Solomon paper does not invalidate the physics of climate change in any way. It simply says that variations in the lower stratosphere's water vapor content has an affect on surface temperatures. Lower than normal water vapor concentrations were partly responsible for the run-up in the global average surface temperature from 1980-2000, while higher than normal concentrations slowed the rate of that warming over the past decade.
posted by plastic_animals at 5:12 PM on February 15, 2010 [4 favorites]

WG2 has spin. There was a graph, that was created in the report, with no references, that purports to link AGW and extreme weather event trends.

Roger Pielke has stuff on this. What Realclimate say is wrong. It's been pointed out to them.

They haven't changed their site. They may at some stage.
posted by sien at 5:31 PM on February 15, 2010

it's surely time to change the approach.

You mean a faith-based approach? If not science, what approach do you recommend? Perhaps the problem is not science, but a general misunderstanding of what science is and how it works.

If medieval man could handle temperatures perhaps 2-3 K higher then we will be able to easily.

Easily, yeah. Certainly there is no difference in supporting a worldwide population of 8 billion versus 500 million or whatever it was in the 12th century. What gets me is why people think we can adapt to climate change "easily", but cutting down carbon and avoiding the problem to begin with is unthinkably costly. The plans I have seen are exspensive, but over a long period of time, so the year to year cost is a minor blip in the budget. It's cheap insurance. Why wouldn't we do it? Because a few large industries would be wiped out and they have powerful propaganda arms to stop it from happening. It's really that simple. If instead of CO2 it was helium (a gas with limited industry support), we would have laws passed a decade ago.
posted by stbalbach at 8:16 PM on February 15, 2010 [2 favorites]

WG2 has spin. There was a graph, that was created in the report, with no references, that purports to link AGW and extreme weather event trends.

The IPCC might have some data that is not entirely vetted as well as it should be (out of 1000s of pages the most complex science ever produced by mankind, minor problems can be found), but calling it "spin" suggests an intention to mislead, which is something else entirely and not supported by your links.
posted by stbalbach at 8:22 PM on February 15, 2010

Countering anthropogenic global warming - if this is possible - will call for more cooperation between governments than has ever seemed possible and it will almost certainly require imposing rigid environmental policies upon some countries by economic or military force. So this isn't just a scientific issue: it is a political issue. And just as science requires accuracy and consistency, politics requires transparency and intelligibility.

I'm not equipped to measure Phil Jones' ability as a scientist, but he isn't "just" a scientist: he is or was the director of a unit proposing the biggest and most expensive project that has ever been contemplated. It is outrageous that this unit was headed by someone who, according to his colleagues, was not good at documenting things. I am appalled at the BBC reporter's suggestion - which he assented to - that he refused FOI requests because he was too disorganised to comply. The man was well out of his depth - why did nobody express their concerns? Why should we presume that Phil Jones' only failing was in gathering and organising responses to FOI requests? Why should we presume that he cut corners only in order to make his administrative duties easier?

I'm sorry Phil Jones was broken by the stress of his position, but I'm also angry with him. This is a crisis and he should have stepped down if he found it too much to handle.
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:23 PM on February 15, 2010

Countering anthropogenic global warming - if this is possible - will call for more cooperation between governments than has ever seemed possible and it will almost certainly require imposing rigid environmental policies upon some countries by economic or military force.

Then seems possible? We have a huge global trade system going and that obviously requires a huge amount of cooperation. And if economic force needs to be applied, so what?
posted by delmoi at 9:11 PM on February 15, 2010

Can one of the "deniers" quickly just tell me what they think the alleged conspiracy to convince people that AGW was real was motivated by? Seriously. I really don't know. I can see many motives for corporations and big business to deny it, but what do the individuals who think it's a hoax think the conspiracy is about?
posted by Liquidwolf at 9:33 PM on February 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

People who over energetically suggest ending C02 emissions are motivated by a desire to save the planet. Good on them. Similarly skeptics think we are doing and that what we say would lead to a better world. No conspiracy theories needed.

The people who got the US to invade Iraq thought they were doing good. Suicide bombers think they are doing good for humanity. Communists thought they were doing good. Doing good sometimes doesn't result in good outcomes.

As for policy a low tax on C02 emissions with all the revenue going toward alternative energy including nuclear power would make sense. It would have considerable use if AGW does turn out to be overblown. Call it a Lomborg Tax. Give Steven Chu 15Bn a year and tell him to get on with it.

It's also possible.

Did you see what happened at Copenhagen?

Here on metafilter you might get agreement for C02 emission auctions and reductons. Europe and Japan say they are going to do things.

However China, India and Russia and most of the developing world are not that interested. They will mouth some targets and ignore them. The Republican Senators needed for a treaty passing vote are not interested.
posted by sien at 9:53 PM on February 15, 2010

People who believe the science of climate change are like Communists and suicide bombers. It's as if the actual evidence of the science doesn't matter, it's a religion or ideology. Obviously. Sien, just curious, which climate denier org are you affiliated with to come up with this spin?
posted by stbalbach at 10:11 PM on February 15, 2010

Guess what. Dr Jones says he lost it. In the Guardian too.
posted by A189Nut at 12:51 AM on February 16, 2010

Liquidwolf - I don't think it is a hoax or a conspiracy. Most of the sceptics I know don't think so either. But I do think it is more speculative and more panic-based than the IPCC acknowledges. Or acknowledged - it is moving fast now. I look forward to James Hansen eating a few of his words anyway.
posted by A189Nut at 12:54 AM on February 16, 2010

Some dude on the Internet said that the vast majority of the world's climate scientists don't know what they are doing.

He might be right. I mean, he quoted some economists...
posted by dirigibleman at 1:39 AM on February 16, 2010 [5 favorites]

We have a huge global trade system going and that obviously requires a huge amount of cooperation.

It only requires cooperation between individuals looking out for their own short-term interest. International cooperation in trade means preventing trade in things like drugs or pirated media. In contrast, dealing with anthropogenic global warming will mean persuading China to stop burning coal (even if it means that many Chinese will continue to live without electricity); Amazonian villagers to stop clearing land (and live on the dole instead); people in LA to take the bus to work for four hours ... surely you can see that this will not be easy.


And if economic force needs to be applied, so what?

Well, you know how a lot of people got upset about the economic sanctions that were applied to Iraq? Sanctions kill people.
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:26 AM on February 16, 2010

"he [Jones] is or was the director of a unit proposing the biggest and most expensive project that has ever been contemplated."

This is misleading. Jones is/was head of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, a center of about thirty scientists that mostly does research into reconstructing past climates.
posted by plastic_animals at 3:58 AM on February 16, 2010 [1 favorite]

The people who got the US to invade Iraq thought they were doing good. Suicide bombers think they are doing good for humanity. Communists thought they were doing good.

Some people were wrong; therefore, all people are wrong.


It would have considerable use if AGW does turn out to be overblown.

Because the possibility of AGW impacts actually being understated in the IPCC is utterly non-existent. Also, there aren't any other problems associated with rapid fossil fuel consumption and exponential economic growth.


Did you see what happened at Copenhagen?

The people at Copenhagen who refused to take drastic action to mitigate climate change thought they were doin... Oh, wait!
posted by Bangaioh at 4:40 AM on February 16, 2010

People who over energetically suggest ending C02 emissions are motivated by a desire to save the planet.

The people you are criticizing are scientists, not policy makers or environmental activists. Scientists don't do science with the goal of "saving the planet". To write a grant, to get published, or to get tenure, we have to do science, not "save the planet".

Why is it that the "deniers" seem incapable of distinguishing climate scientists, biogeochemists, and atmospheric physicists studying incredibly complex systems and coming to real conclusions from Al Gore?
posted by hydropsyche at 5:43 AM on February 16, 2010

They did it for attention and all that it brings. It's a pretty standard human motivation. For some, religious motivations played a part (hail Gaia!).
posted by Crabby Appleton at 8:06 AM on February 16, 2010

How much attention do you think the average scientist publishing in Global Change Biology or Global Biogeochemical Cycles gets? People who go into science to get famous quickly discover there are easier ways to do so.
posted by hydropsyche at 9:33 AM on February 16, 2010

They did it for attention self-interest and all that it brings. It's a pretty standard human motivation. For some, religious motivations played a part (hail Gaia unfettered Freedom!).

Fixed in order to apply to the deniers. It's easy to paint with a broad brush.
posted by Bangaioh at 9:59 AM on February 16, 2010

It's easy to paint with a broad brush.

Not to mention fun!
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:18 AM on February 16, 2010

I look forward to James Hansen eating a few of his words anyway.

We all do, for the sake of the planet, but unfortunately the bad news about climate change keeps getting worse every passing year. Actual observations - Arctic melting, glaciers melting, oceans acidifying, etc.. natural causes you say? Of course the IPCC includes those in its report, they have been studied, but they don't explain the total amount of change.
posted by stbalbach at 2:37 PM on February 16, 2010

Book Review: The Lomborg Deception. Debunking the claims of the climate-change skeptic.
posted by homunculus at 10:15 AM on February 23, 2010