Climategate Five Years On: Who Won The War?

authordefault
on

If five years is a long time in politics, in the politics of climate science, itโ€™s anย eternity.

Five years ago this week, in the days immediately prior to 17ย November 2009, the scientific community had painted a picture of climate change that was essentially unquestioned in the corridors ofย governments.

Bloggers routinely attacked the processes and institutions of climate science, but those attacks made few waves in the worldย outside.

And world leaders were preparing for a summit that they had billed as a turningย point.

Then: โ€˜A miracle has happened,โ€™ย read a commentย posted on the (generally climate-sceptic)ย Climate Auditย blog, along with a link leading to a zipped file on the (generally sceptical about Climate Audit)ย RealClimateย blog.

And the established picture began to twist itself into a very differentย shape.

The file contained a tranche of emails obtained from the University of East Angliaโ€™sย Climatic Research Unit, a vital institution in the climate science community as it compilesย one of the principal recordsย of globalย temperature.

RealClimate quickly locked up the file, butย it re-emerged later the same dayย on other blogs, andย proliferated.

In a process taken straight from the textbook of public relations strategies, interpretation preceded fact. The view that the emails contained damning evidence of collusion and deceit within the climate science community spun its way across the blogosphere before anyone had time to go through the material in detail and work out whether this wasย true.

– See more at: http://www.rtcc.org/2014/11/18/climategate-five-years-on-who-won-the-war…DAILY_BRIEFING&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_876aab4fd7-751374b06e-303421245#sthash.SxPOpZdz.dpuf

Claims of collusion and deceit within the scientific community caused a scandal in 2009, but to whatย effect?

If five years is a long time in politics, in the politics of climate science, itโ€™s an eternity, writes former BBC environment correspondent, Richard Black.

Five years ago this week, in the days immediately prior to 17ย November 2009, the scientific community had painted a picture of climate change that was essentially unquestioned in the corridors ofย governments.

Bloggers routinely attacked the processes and institutions of climate science, but those attacks made few waves in the worldย outside.

And world leaders were preparing for a summit that they had billed as a turningย point.

Then: โ€˜A miracle has happened,โ€™ย read a commentย posted on the (generally climate-sceptic)ย Climate Auditย blog, along with a link leading to a zipped file on the (generally sceptical about Climate Audit)ย RealClimateย blog.

And the established picture began to twist itself into a very differentย shape.

The file contained a tranche of emails obtained from the University of East Angliaโ€™sย Climatic Research Unit, a vital institution in the climate science community as it compilesย one of the principal recordsย of globalย temperature.

RealClimate quickly locked up the file, butย it re-emerged later the same dayย on other blogs, andย proliferated.

In a process taken straight from the textbook of public relations strategies, interpretation preceded fact. The view that the emails contained damning evidence of collusion and deceit within the climate science community spun its way across the blogosphere before anyone had time to go through the material in detail and work out whether this wasย true.

On 20thย November, the BBC (for whom I then worked) became the first mainstream media organisationย to report the issue. Three days after that, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) was able to launchย with a call for a public inquiry, and set itself on the road to becoming an influential critic of theย consensus.

And all this on the eve of what was billed as the most important climate summit ever โ€“ the United Nations gathering in Copenhagen at the end of 2009 at which presidents, prime ministers and other government representatives were due to agree a global deal on climateย change.

Sound andย fury

Iโ€™m not going to delve back into the details of the affair that quickly became known as ClimateGate. Fred Pearceโ€™s highly readable bookย The Climate Filesย is the place forย that.

What is interesting now is to look back and ask: โ€˜So did all that sound and fury changeย anything?โ€™

At the time, the answer was far fromย obvious.

At the Copenhagen summit itself, which I covered for the entire two weeks, the issue was rarely raised. The Saudisย used itย to question whether a new global treaty was needed โ€“ but no other delegations picked up the baton, and by then the summit was in any caseย falling apart for other reasons.

But it certainlyย changed politics in countries such as the US, Canada, Russia and UK, where it gave succour toย politicians who were not convinced of the case for reducing greenhouse gasย emissions.

ClimateGate certainly affected journalism. In the UK, some editors used it as evidence that climate change had been over-hyped; one long-standing correspondent detailed privatelyย how his editor gave him the cold shoulder, complaining that the correspondent concerned had โ€˜gone nativeโ€™ on the issue. Even blue-chip news agencyย Reutersย had its issues.

It affected science too. A number of high profile researchers saw their working lives turned upside down by a flurry ofย Freedom of Information requests,ย inquiriesย and even lawsuits. Any climate scientists who did not realise what a politicised issue they were working on were swiftly and brutally brought up toย speed.

Most importantly, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)ย was attackedย on its competence, its independence and itsย processes.

Partly this was down to its unfortunate reaction to theย discovery of a mistakeย in its assessment of Himalayan glacier melt. But the ClimateGate emails played a major part โ€“ in particular, extracts that were interpreted as showing scientists colluding to prioritise their own research and steer IPCC conclusions in a certainย direction.

Is scienceย bent?

The biggest charge of all was against climate science itself: in short, that it wasย bent.

If this were proven, then the entire edifice erected around climate change would fallย apart.

There would be no need for national plans to reduce emissions, no need for adaptation measures, no need for the international smorgasbord of entities and processes working on the issueโ€™s variousย dimensions.

We could all carry on burning fossil fuels until they ran out, and enjoy theย party.

The case, emphatically, has not been proven.Various inquiriesย into the affair proved that on occasion, climate scientists had been disorganised, had not followed the best statistical protocols, and had broken rules on Freedom of Informationย requests.

Since 2009, the IPCC has made some reforms, being far more open to the possibility of errors andย far more agile in their correctionย [pdfย link].

But the essential charge โ€“ that climate science was bent โ€“ has been heard, examined, andย overwhelminglyย dismissed.

Pyrrhicย victory

Does climate science have all the answers? Clearly not. Scientists have at times made mistakes, have at times reached erroneous conclusions, and will continue on occasions to do both; such is the nature ofย science.

But neither ClimateGate nor anything thatโ€™s happened since has cast the essential picture of a warming world intoย doubt.

In fact, as my former BBC colleaguesย Matt McGrathย andย Roger Harrabinย have both observed in recent months, there are signs that the โ€˜battle for the truth about global warmingโ€™, as Fred Pearce put it on the cover of his account of ClimateGate, is nearlyย over.

If it is, then itโ€™s important to point out who won. And in general, itโ€™s mainstream climate science, not its critics,ย that emerged wreathed inย garlands.

A few leaders such as Australiaโ€™s Prime Minister Tony Abbott still find use for the accusations ofย ClimateGate.

But by endorsing the most recent IPCC report, allย governments, including Mr Abbottโ€™s, have accepted the scientific picture that preventing the worst impacts of climate change means ending fossil fuel burning on a timescale ofย decades.

It doesnโ€™t mean that governments will act on that timescale, because forces other than science influence political decision-making.ย But clearly they paid no heed to claims that the underlying science was flawed orย bent.

It is, though, the kind of victory not to be celebrated. For one thing, it just shows that the vast majority of climate scientists were simply doing theirย job.

More importantly, it indicates that the challenging picture they paint of the risks ahead is likely to be correct in its central narrative, if not in everyย detail.

And that picture continues toย make the case for a grand societal transition away from fossil fuels, which is unlikely to be an easyย journey.

Richard Black is former BBC Environment Correspondent and now Director of the Energy and Climare Intelligence Unit. Follow him on Twitter @_richardblack

This was originally posted to RTCC

Photo:ย Nasa/flickr

authordefault

Related Posts

The EU and many member states have set limits for how much manure farmers are allowed to apply in their fields, but crucial oversight is lacking.

The EU and many member states have set limits for how much manure farmers are allowed to apply in their fields, but crucial oversight is lacking.
on

Robert Wilkie was speaking at a conference co-hosted by the group behind the radical Project 2025 agenda.

Robert Wilkie was speaking at a conference co-hosted by the group behind the radical Project 2025 agenda.
on

Scope of corporate influence underscores concerns the technology will be used to prolong demand for planet-heating natural gas.

Scope of corporate influence underscores concerns the technology will be used to prolong demand for planet-heating natural gas.
on

A 1961 oil and gas well is the suspected source of a geyser eruption in the region where Permian wastewater disposal is causing a flurry of earthquakes.

A 1961 oil and gas well is the suspected source of a geyser eruption in the region where Permian wastewater disposal is causing a flurry of earthquakes.