This is my obligatory post on the CRU hack, which the denialist blogocave is referring to as “Climategate” while the pushback refers to it as “SwiftHack“. It grew out of a comment I did over at ClimateSight.
If you aren’t aware of the CRU hack, there’s an app for that. There’s a lot of good coverage on this, but there’s also a positively ludicrous amount of noise as well. The videos by Potholer54 and Peter Sinclair go into that somewhat, and there’s always SwiftHack if you want up-to-the-second information on it. (Aside: It’s sad that we need that, but oh well…)
This post isn’t about that, though. It’s about what’s not in the e-mails, and thus not causing any fallout. One of the best passages on this subject was also one of the first, from RealClimate:
More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.
Let’s take a look at the most common conspiracies and see what the CRU was saying about them in private over the last 13 years. The answers, below the fold, could be shocking.
Note: I’m using East Anglia E-mails to search the mails, and I’m putting their results up in the order that search returns them in (roughly in chronological order). I would also like to preface by saying I do NOT condone the illegal theft of private communications, and am only doing this in an effort to counter some of the noise out there.
AL GORE
Let’s start with the 800-pound polar bear in the room, the great standby of the conspiracy theorist, Al Gore. Surely, if he was behind a conspiracy of science, his interference or orders would be mentioned by the researchers frequently, right?
Search the hacked mails for “gore” and you’ll find a grand total of six references from thirteen years worth of mail (some dating back from when Gore was Vice President and others spanning the time An Inconvenient Truth came out, i.e. when he’s making headlines). Let’s look a bit deeper.
Of those six references, we see the following:
- The first time the name “Gore” appears in the mails is in text quoted from an Associated Press article from 2001, reporting on the removal of Bob Watson from the position of IPCC chair (later replaced with current chair Rajendra Pauchari). The article reveals memos (obtained via FOIA) from Exxon-Mobil to the Bush White House requesting Watson’s removal - these memos refer to efforts to “restructure the U.S. attendance at upcoming IPCC meetings to assure none of the Clinton/Gore proponents are involved in any decisional activities.” The mail exchange itself discusses the implications of a change in IPCC chairmanship (and is honestly worth a read, since not everyone disagreed with it). This is part of a label for the Clinton administration, not the work of Gore himself, and it’s an Exxon staffer mentioning the name, not a scientist.
- The next mail also has Gore’s name coming up in a quote from inactivists (specifically, Christopher Monckton). Monckton is complaining about Gore’s actions directly here (instead of just namedropping), but all Gore did in this exchange was challenge Monckton’s list of skeptical scientists with the Oreskes essay. The exchange between inactivists resulted in inviting Penn State climatologist Michael Mann to the discussion, and he flips out about it – specifically, about their misrepresentations and misreading of the IPCC AR4. Mann is one of the more colourful figures in climate science, but even in his outburst, there’s nothing on Gore - here, it’s a reference from inactivists yet again. (Note that Monckton is infamous as a conspiracy theorist, provocateur, and compulsive liar.)
- This time it’s yet again quoted from an inactivist press release, specifically from Fred Singer’s SEPP (all of those are separate links). The actual scientific discussion here starts with Dr. Ben Santer calling for help against this type of misrepresentation of science. He isn’t complaining about the SEPP itself, but rather about the paper the release is promoting, specifically Douglass, Pearson, Christy and Singer 2009 (i.e., a scientist disputing a published piece of science, also known as standard scientific practice). (I would also like to highlight that Dr. Santer himself was the subject of personal attacks a decade earlier from a group Singer is affiliated with, the George C. Marshall Institute. The editorials attacking him are mirrored on Singer’s SEPP website. Note that they are basically claiming that making changes in response to peer review is the same as doctoring a report. Santer’s replies in self-defense (which were also signed off on by the other IPCC authors at the time) are not mirrored by the SEPP.) Here, as above, Gore’s name is a mere namedrop from inactivists, not part of the scientific discourse.
- This time it isn’t even referring to Al Gore: His name shows up here as part of the URL of PlanetGore, the National Review’s climate change inactivist commentary clearinghouse. (The specific link was from Gavin Schmidt (of RealClimate) asking for information about the latest Stephen McIntyre attack against the hockey stick, for the record.) This is the only time a scientist mentions the word “gore”, and it’s part of a label, not referring to Al.
- Gore is mentioned in another quoted inactivist screed (this time by names I don’t recognize), and not even mentioned as a major player. The screed is yelling about tree ring data accuracy and the IPCC reports, and it tosses Gore’s name out as an example of a “carbon control advocate” (note: irrelevant to the thesis of the argument). The scientists are talking about how to properly respond to these allegations and pointing out what’s wrong with his scientific claims - not a word about Al. This is another namedrop from inactivists.
- The most recent time the word “gore” shows up is in text quoted from a Pat Michaels editorial (itself quoted from a mail from Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, the editor of Energy And Environment, cc’d to Benny Peiser). The actual discussion in this mail is a conversation thread complaining about the accuracy of Boehmer-Christiansen’s understanding of science by citing Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick as experts on dendrochronology (their only publications on the subject have been rebutted many times). The scientists aren’t discussing Gore at all (in fact, it’s little more than a namedrop by inactivists. (It’s also worth noting that Pat Michaels, the author of the original namedrop, is one of the few inactivists with scientific credentials, and he is quite vocal about the Earth having warmed (disproving the “earth is currently cooling” meme that some say the e-mails show) - see the ending segment from the Sinclair video for one recent example.)
That’s it.
For all his supposed involvement and importance to the scientists, and for all the “smoking guns” present in those mails, there’s a dearth of discussion of Gore – every time (except once) his name appears, it’s by inactivists, and only one of those is actually referring to things he’s done instead of just namedropping. The scientists themselves simply aren’t discussing him.
Of course, this obviously means the Secret Warmist Dual-Class Lawyer/Ninjas have instructed the scientists in staying silent, further proving the conspiracy. I mean, honestly.
Day 2:
GEORGE SOROS
If you listen to any of the right-wing rhetoric on pretty much any issue one can have a progressive stance on, George Soros is the enigmatic financier passing along millions of dollars to activists, arguably to… well, we’re not quite sure. Google “soros conspiracy” and you’ll find several versions of this; a few hits of “I’m feeling lucky” should sate any curiosity on the subject. (For a real laugh, check out his article on Conservapedia.) Obviously, one would expect The Boss to show up multiple times in the Vast Warmist Conspiracy, since he holds the pursestrings of the Bavarian Climatati.
Searching the hacked CRU mails for “soros” returns… zero results over the last thirteen years.
Obviously, the warmists use a code-name for this fellow. I mean, honestly.
Well, that was unimpressive. I’ll include a second one for the day, searching for the term “socialist” (as in “socialist conspiracy to redistribute wealth and destroy capitalism”).
Searching the hacked CRU mails for “socialist” reveals… zero results over the last 13 years.
Hmm. Maybe they use the -ism version of the word.
Searching the hacked CRU mails for “socialism” reveals… zero results over the last 13 years.
Obviously, the message discipline of this conspiracy runs deep - literally no discussion on the core elements of the conspiracy! I mean, honestly.
Day 3:
SILENCING SKEPTICS
A very common claim about the CRU hack is that it proves -PROVES!!! (allcaps and exclamation swarm required) - that the CRU scientists were silencing skeptics, blocking their papers from publication. This would, of course, be scandalous, if it were true.
A discouraging point to this particular conspiracy theory is the “redefine peer review” mail - it refers to keeping a pair of papers out of the IPCC reports. The conspiracy theorist who would actually read the IPCC report would notice that these papers were in fact cited and discussed in the report.
But what about the other, slightly-lesser-known mails? Surely, there must be something there.
Saving me some work, Potholer54 did a spectacular video on just this very subject - including repeating this exercise for some of the more respectable skeptical research. Check it out:
Obviously, the scientists involved in silencing these particular skeptics were employed somewhere other than the CRU, and these separate “cells” (if you will) do not communicate with each other. I mean, honestly.
