What we think about ClimateGate

What we think about ClimateGate

by Ann Pettifor, December 5th 2009

I have lived with a physicist, and know first-hand that the world of academic science is as competitive, ruthless and mean as the worlds of fashion, or banking, or football. And like the people of those worlds, climate scientists are human: competitive, ruthless and mean.

So it should come as no surprise to us that there have been ‘hand balls’ in the game of climate science, and that efforts have been made to trip up and marginalise opponents. But while not surprised, we must be disappointed in the scientists at the University of East Anglia. They no longer occupy the moral high ground. And as we at Operation Noah fully understand, it is where you stand on the moral high ground that matters when it comes to leading public opinion.

However, let us turn our attention to the big picture. The science of climate change is complex. It involves physics, geophysics, chemistry, meteorology, geology, geodesy, vulcanology, dendrochronology, palynology, atmospheric science and oceanography – to name but a few of the disciplines. Naturally there are lively, even vitriolic debates within and between these disciplines as to the rigour and quality of each branch of research.

What we as campaigners must focus on is

a) the overall scientific consensus and

b) the long-term trends. Short-term trends can confuse.

First the consensus: the basic conclusions of global warming have been endorsed by more than 40 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The scientific consensus is overwhelming. The UN’s prestigious committee of scientists states that: "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal" (IPPC, 2007).

Second, the long-term trends. The fact is that the last 10 years have been the warmest on record. That there has been a rise in global temperatures and a rise in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Evidence for this is unequivocal.

And that is what should worry us. Because long-term warming (which may be interrupted by very cold spells) will melt glaciers and cause sea-levels to rise. Long-term warming will lead to ever more extreme weather events.
In other words, more Cockermouths. A future in which the shock of Cockermouth will no longer be experienced as a shock. It will become routine.

That is what we should be focus on as we watch events in Copenhagen.