Climategate vs. the Heartless Institute?


Image by: ~Britt Anderson~

How about a little light weekend reading for climate hawks? (courtesy of @drgrist)  You’ve probably heard about the much ballyhooed publication of climate denial schemes from the Heartland Institute (A national nonprofit research organization dedicated to finding and promoting ideas that empower people. {Incredulous emphasis mine.}) which were released earlier this week.  A group of climate scientists caught me off guard with their pointed response.  Their thoughts seem highly relevant as they know a thing or two about having their private information stolen.  Some, including the folks at the Heartland Institute, are questioning the veracity of one of the documents, but more about that at the end.  First, here is the climate scientists’ response letter.

An Open Letter to the Heartland Institute

As scientists who have had their emails stolen, posted online and grossly misrepresented, we can appreciate the difficulties the Heartland Institute is currently experiencing following the online posting of the organization’s internal documents earlier this week. However, we are greatly disappointed by their content, which indicates the organization is continuing its campaign to discredit mainstream climate science and to undermine the teaching of well-established climate science in the classroom.

We know what it feels like to have private information stolen and posted online via illegal hacking. It happened to climate researchers in 2009 and again in 2011. Personal emails were culled through and taken out of context before they were posted online. In 2009, the Heartland Institute was among the groups that spread false allegations about what these stolen emails said.

Despite multiple independent investigations, which demonstrated that allegations against scientists were false, the Heartland Institute continued to attack scientists based on the stolen emails. When more stolen emails were posted online in 2011, the Heartland Institute again pointed to their release and spread false claims about scientists.

So although we can agree that stealing documents and posting them online is not an acceptable practice, we would be remiss if we did not point out that the Heartland Institute has had no qualms about utilizing and distorting emails stolen from scientists.
We hope the Heartland Institute will heed its own advice to “think about what has happened” and recognize how its attacks on science and scientists have helped poison the debate over climate change policy. The Heartland Institute has chosen to undermine public understanding of basic scientific facts and personally attack climate researchers rather than engage in a civil debate about climate change policy options.

These are the facts: Climate change is occurring. Human activity is the primary cause of recent climate change. Climate change is already disrupting many human and natural systems. The more heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions that go into the atmosphere, the more severe those disruptions will become. Major scientific assessments from the Royal Society, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, United States Global Change Research Program and other authoritative sources agree on these points.

What businesses, policymakers, advocacy groups and citizens choose to do in response to those facts should be informed by the science. But those decisions are also necessarily informed by economic, ethical, ideological, and other considerations. While the Heartland Institute is entitled to its views on policy, we object to its practice of spreading misinformation about climate research and personally attacking climate scientists to further its goals.
We hope the Heartland Institute will begin to play a more constructive role in the policy debate. Refraining from misleading attacks on climate science and climate researchers would be a welcome first step toward having an honest, fact-based debate about the policy responses to climate change.

Ray Bradley, PhD, Director of the Climate System Research Center, University of Massachusetts
David Karoly, PhD, ARC Federation Fellow and Professor, University of Melbourne, Australia
Michael Mann, PhD, Director, Earth System Science Center, Pennsylvania State University
Jonathan Overpeck, PhD, Professor of Geosciences and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona
Ben Santer, PhD, Research Scientist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Gavin Schmidt, PhD, Climate Scientist, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Kevin Trenberth, ScD, Distinguished Senior Scientist, Climate Analysis Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research

(Source: http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2012/02/17/heartland.pdf)

Mark Gunther posted an article on Sustainable Business Forum which suggests that bloggers have gone to far with suggestions of Heartland’s Big Oil connections, but also suggests they should be forthright with undisclosed sources of funding.

As for me I’ll side with the line from that old song by Coolio. You know the one…

If you can’t take the heat, get your ass out the kitchen.

If you think it’s okay to make hay with stolen information, you shouldn’t expect preferential treatment when you’re on the other end of the looking-glass.

Michael Noble’s Mea Culpa Speaks for Us All (Climatehawks, that is)


Michael Noble, Executive Director of Fresh-Energy.org, posted a scathing rebuke to, well… himself.  His post takes exception with complacency in the face of the climategate attacks on IPCC scientists.  I was so moved by Michael’s post that I asked for permission to repost it here.  Michael was gracious enough to grant permission, so here it is in its entirety.  Enjoy.

My Apology to Climate Scientists

Originally Posted at fresh-energy.org 11.29.2011 BY MICHAEL NOBLE

children and clean energyTwo years ago around this time, I was preparing to attend the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Copenhagen, where 192 countries and most heads of state gathered to address climate change. The day’s top headlines heralded the release of 1,079 of your private emails, an action intended to attack climate science and the scientific process, giving a segment of the public a rallying cry against international action. Embarrassing snippets of your emails were repeated endlessly in blogs, news outlets, and social media—an incident dubbed “Climategate” by a lazy press.

I remember spending a few hours reading the coverage and emails. I thought about writing a defense of the science and the scientists but I hesitated, realizing I couldn’t really know everything that might be contained in the private emails. If I jumped to judgment without seeing the context or the independent reviews, I would have been guilty of my own bias. I assured myself that the stolen emails did not require my attention: whatever ill manners, bad behavior, or hostility was revealed in the emails, nothing arose that changed the fundamentals of the science. And nothing made me less concerned about the state of the world’s changing climate or the urgency of international action on Copenhagen.

Two years later to the day, the still-unknown thief of your private communications has struck again, releasing 5,300 more of your emails on the eve of the conference of the 192 countries meeting in Durban, South Africa. Perhaps nine separate investigations over the past two years or the patent absurdity of your attackers means that this new barrage of attacks will take less of a toll on you.

But this time, I will not be silent.

So today, Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Ben Santer, Kevin Trenberth (and your professional colleagues everywhere), I am writing to apologize. When you were denounced, I said nothing. When your reputations were trashed by people with malice and motive, I did not speak up. Once the jury came in (nine different times), I should have thanked and praised you for continuing your research, defending the scientific process, and standing up to defy abuse that would have withered lesser men and women. Thank you for struggling to make sense of the evidence and thank you for your commitment to the work, regardless of the powerful and vested interests who would attempt to silence you.

What we see in your emails of 2009 and the thousands of new emails is science at work. We see you are very smart and very human people (some with less polished social skills), writing about and debating the most difficult and cutting-edge aspects of climate science problems. As peers, you argue whether papers are good enough to appear in the best journals. Disagreements and skepticism among you is common, necessary, and messy. You get together at conferences to argue, and you coalesce and refine your views in light of new and better evidence. Clearer positions and new understanding emerge. Better graphs replace older ones; better models describe the future with more confidence. Then the process is repeated on the next contested and interesting aspect of the science. It’s not elegant or even always polite, but the primacy of the process and the ruthlessness of evidence trumps personalities every time.

What’s remarkable in of all the ink, the inquiries, and the half-dozen independent investigations over two years of the so-called “Climategate,” is that not one single tenet of the science of 2009 was undermined or reversed. Where we are today as countries debate the destiny of the human species in Durban is more or less the same place we were in Copenhagen, except more urgent because two additional years have been lost to the foot-draggers. The plain physics of the matter remains unchanged.

When you deliver your view of the physics to the world, we ask you to do it in a most unnatural way. We ask that you agree on a summary for policy makers within the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, word for word, and have it approved verbatim by each of the 192 nations of the world who are parties to the United Nations conference. It seems preposterous, but you agree. The messages you deliver from time to time, the last of which was in 2007, are the least common denominator views and extremely cautious and conservative by design.

What you have told us since 1990 is this: the world has already unequivocally warmed due to human emissions and future warming poses serious consequences. These consequences can be mitigated by reducing emissions deeply, primarily from reducing the use of fossil fuels. Since future warming is inevitable, humankind must adapt to some consequences that cannot be avoided. In large measure, what is most uncertain is whether we have a very serious problem that is still manageable or whether the problem is more severe—or even catastrophic. In other words, the greatest uncertainty is the mix of mitigation, adaptation, and human suffering in the future. In any case, our only current prudent action is to reduce our risk by reducing emissions.

Fatih Birol, the chief economist of the International Energy Agency,  spoke as the delegates convened in Durban, South Africa, using unscientific and intemperate words you would never write: “The world is perfectly on track for a six-degree Celsius increase in temperature. Everybody, even schoolchildren, knows this is a catastrophe for all of us.”

When stubborn or ill-informed observers refuse to accept the plain physics of the matter that you have widely agreed upon, they cannot be considered serious people. When these unserious people make a career of contesting settled science in the popular press or in pursuit of ideological goals, they are rightly regarded as denying science.

I am sorry I didn’t speak out on your behalf earlier.

Rick Piltz at Climate Science Watch assembled a great list of others’ blog postings on this topic. I encourage everyone to read them.

The UK Guardian, which can usually be counted on as more likely to get the story straight than most of the U.S. media, had this piece: Climate scientists defend work in wake of new leak of hacked emails. Latest leak appears to be an attempt to undermine public support for international climate change action ahead of Durban talks.

Good piece by Jason Samenow at the Washington Post’s Capital Weather Gang blog:Climategate 2.0: Do new emails undermine global warming science?

Good piece by the intrepid reporter Kate Sheppard at Mother JonesClimategate 2.0: Will the Media Do Its Job This Time? Rather than smearing scientists, reporters might want to try some actual reporting.

Revkin in the New York Times: Another Treaty Negotiation, Another Batch of Climate Science E-Mail

Union of Concerned Scientists statement: Hackers Release Batch of Stolen Emails from Scientists – Science Group Calls on British Authorities to Increase Efforts to Identify Hackers

At the excellent Skeptical ScienceClimategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey

From our friends at DeSmogBlog in Canada: East Anglia SwiftHack Email Nontroversy Returns: What You Need To Know

Peter Sinclair at Climate Crock of the WeekBad News for Deniers: Grown-ups Weigh in on Email Leftovers

John Abraham, ahead of the curve, at Daily ClimateWe are smarter this time around

The indispensable Joe Romm at Climate ProgressFool Me Once, Shame on You, Fool Me Twice, Shame on the Media: More Stolen Emails Can’t Stop Catastrophic Global Warming, Only We Can

Shawn Lawrence. Otto, author of Fool me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in AmericaClimategate 2.0? Pay no attention to the energy industry behind the curtain

Don Shelby at MinnPostHow will the media handle Climategate Version 2.0?

Two good posts by Jocelyn Fong at the watchdog group Media Matters for America:

Memo To Media: Research First, Then Report On Climate Emails

Media Already Botching Reports On Hacked Climate Emails

Richard Littlemore at DeSmogBlogClimategate Hackers Slither Again in the Night

About Fresh Energy

Fresh Energy’s goal is an energy system that sustains our economies, human health, and the environment. Through advocacy, research, and collaboration, we deliver laws to make clean energy more available, fight global warming, and provide less polluting, more efficient transportation options. Through it all, we focus on using energy more wisely—doing more work with less energy.

I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings (Bidder 70)


Image by: Steve Rhodes

Grist.org published Tim DeChristopher’s first letter from prison today.  In the letter, Tim shares the shares the story of the opportunity for freedom which he forgave to stand firm on his principles.

Side note: If you’re not familiar with his plight, I recently wrote a post covering Tim’s story.   If you don’t want to dig in on the post, at least go read his statement, which I reproduced in its entirety at the end of that post. (Check it out.  It’s a powerful, hope-filled piece from an inspiring leader of the environmental movement.)

Tim’s first jail cell missive cuts through the din of the day’s political clatter.  At a time when many surreptitiously repudiate their beliefs for personal gain, Tim stands firm with his principles.  His actions stand in stark contrast to those of political candidates who knowingly deny the consensus of climate science.  When given the chance to recant his earlier statements, and thereby avoid jail time, Tim stood firm.  Here are his words:

If I had ever doubted the power of words, Judge Benson made their importance all too clear at my sentencing last month. When he sentenced me to two years in prison plus three years probation, he admitted my offense “wasn’t too bad.” The problem, Judge Benson insisted, was my “continuing trail of statements” and my lack of regret. Apparently, all he really wanted was an apology, and for that, two years in prison could have been avoided. In fact, Judge Benson said that had it not been for the political statements I made in public, I would have avoided prosecution entirely. As is generally the case with civil disobedience, it was extremely important to the government that I come before the majesty of the court with my head bowed and express regret.

(The rest of Tim’s letter is available here.  I assure you, it is well worth your time.)

I’ll close today’s post with the impetus for today’s title, Maya Angelou’s poem of the same name.

I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings

By Maya Angelou

The free bird leaps
on the back of the wind
and floats downstream
till the current ends
and dips his wings
in the orange sun rays
and dares to claim the sky.

But a bird that stalks
down his narrow cage
can seldom see through
his bars of rage
his wings are clipped and
his feet are tied
so he opens his throat to sing.

The caged bird sings
with fearful trill
of the things unknown
but longed for still
and his tune is heard
on the distant hill for the caged bird
sings of freedom

The free bird thinks of another breeze
and the trade winds soft through the sighing trees
and the fat worms waiting on a dawn-bright lawn
and he names the sky his own.

But a caged bird stands on the grave of dreams
his shadow shouts on a nightmare scream
his wings are clipped and his feet are tied
so he opens his throat to sing

The caged bird sings
with a fearful trill
of things unknown
but longed for still
and his tune is heard
on the distant hill
for the caged bird
sings of freedom.

Climategate: Case Closed


A new MIT study which will soon be released, “concluded that the (IPCC) forecasts were significantly off: Arctic sea ice is thinning, on average, four times faster than the models say, and it’s drifting twice as quickly.”  I’ve been thinking about this news the past couple of days and its potential implications.  The past two years have seen a steady diet of attacks on climate science and its practitioners.

For those who are not familiar, Climategate, as conservative media outlets lovingly referred to it, was the “controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit.”

I was digging through Brad Johnson’s (climatebrad of ThinkProgress.org) YouTube feed earlier and ran across the following interview of Stephen Dubner, the co-author of Freakonomics. (I normally link out to all the books I reference, but couldn’t bring myself to do so here.)

(Btw, I highly recommend subscribing to Brad’s posts on YouTube.  He regularly posts relevant content for those concerned with climate science and politics.)

The interview irked me for multiple reasons.  First, the interviewer, David Asman, opened with:

Well, politicians distort the truth all the time, but scientists are not supposed to do that. Still, it does happen. Stalin used to demand results from scientists that weren’t supported by evence — evidence, and of course Hitler did the same. But surely, we are above that, aren’t we? Well, “It can’t happen here,” as many people have said, but apparently it has.

Hat tip to Brad for calling this out in his response to the interview,  “After Asman compared climate scientists to Stalin and Hitler — we’re not kidding — Dubner jumped in to accuse “potent” scientists of “colluding” to “tell Al Gore what to say,” and “distorting evidence” to “make their findings be right for their position”:” (Emphasis here is mine.)

Next, Dubner admits that the emails were “hacked” (i.e. they were illegally stolen), before positing two potential reasons for this:

“Someone either wanted to get in there because they knew there was something that you know should be read, or maybe there’s a whistle blower, at this point we really don’t know.”

With this statement, Dubner suggests that there is only one possible reason for the emails to have been stolen,  wrongdoing by the scientists whose emails were stolen, the only question is whether it was an inside job.

Asman then tees up the opportunity to wholly discredit the IPCC and Dubner swings for the fences.

ASMAN: Bottom line, we’ve got to cut to the chase. Who do you think is doing what to the evidence? Do you think that supporters of global warming and the UN are distorting evidence to prove their point?

DUBNER: Distorting evidence, probably yes. To what degree with don’t really know yet. We’re going to find out a lot more about that. Here’s what I think.

ASMAN: But doesn’t to any degree discredit their theories?

DUBNER: Yeah. You can’t —

ASMAN: If something has been made up you can’t rely on anything else.

DUBNER: You can’t read these e-mails and feel that the IPCC or the major climate scientists’ findings and predictions about global warming are kosher. You can’t. They may be, but if you read these you have to have a whole lot of skepticism about that.

Dubner does give himself the safe out at the end with the “they may be” comment, but the damage was done when he said that their findings and predictions didn’t feel kosher.

“Climategate” Debunked

In the past two years, several investigations were launched to review the stolen data.

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) has a nice rundown of the results:

Investigations Clear Scientists of Wrongdoing

If you want to take a deep dive on the subject, check out the full UCS writeup, “Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the “Climategate” Manufactured Controversy.”  Along with the links shared above, the site features additional background information, links to press releases and further fact checking information, analysis from the UCS, and quite a bit more.

And What of the Accused?

The Climatic Research Unit (CRU), the group whose emails were stolen maintains three things on the home page of their website.
First, they list the list the outcomes of the following investigations:
  • “the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact” (House of Commons Science and Technology Committee)
  • “we saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit” (Lord Oxburgh Science Assessment Panel)
  • “their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt” (Sir Muir Russell Independent Climate Change Emails Review)
  • “careful examination of the e-mails and their full context shows that the petitioners’ claims are exaggerated and are not a material or reliable basis to question the validity and credibility of the body of [climate] science” (US Environmental Protection Agency)
For further information and the latest news, please see the Media and Communications site.
Next, they have the detail the organization’s purpose:
The aim of CRU is to improve scientific understanding in:
– past climate history and its impact on humanity
– the course and causes of climate change during the present century
– prospects for the future
Finally, they share a graphic which displays the average global temp since about 1850.  This seems a nice comeuppance (Something I’m a big fan of.) as they are displaying the data which received such close scrutiny.  To me this screams, “here it is, do your worst.  We can take it!”

Time For One More Investigation?

I had planned to make a case for investigating the embattled News Corp organization, but a quick Google search told me the Joe Romm had beaten me to the punch by nearly a month.   I highly recommend reading his insightful take on the case for further investigation into the hacking incident, “Could Murdoch’s News Corp be behind Climategate too?”  It’s not hard to mentally connect the dots with News of the World’s hacking escapades and illicit dealings with Scotland Yard going on at the same time that Fox News was hammering away at the IPCC over the stolen emails.  I’m not aware of a shred of evidence, so call this rampant speculation if you like, but recent events tell me it’s worth a look.

Closing the Door on Climategate

I opened this post with the news that arctic sea ice is melting four times faster than the IPCC scientists had predicted.  This is just one aspect of the IPCC’s research, but it is an important one as the melting ice has serious implications on global climate.  One study suggests that the melting ice could change ocean currents and severely impact the climate in Europe and North America.  “In any case, all researchers can agree that the Arctic ice has decreased by a third since 1979, and that Arctic ice hit a new monthly record low this past month.